To the Russian Orthodox People
A Statement of the ROCOR Bishops Concerning the Moscow Patriarchate (2000)
The leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate has now officially declared that it
looks upon the property of the Russian Church Abroad as its own, for only it,
and no other, is the "sole legal heir to the property of the pre-Revolutionary
Church," which, consequently, "is being held by the schismatics abroad
illegally," and that such a decision "is accepted by the Orthodox believing
people of Russia with joy and profound gratitude."
This statement compels us, the hierarchs abroad, to address the Russian
Orthodox people directly. It is essential that we clarify the essential question
which has emerged over the last decade—the question of succession with regard
to the Russian Orthodox Church and historical Russia.
I. On the eve of the fall of the Communist regime it seemed possible that the
previous cause of the ecclesiastical division—the atheistic government—was
already falling away, and that the rest of our problems would be resolved in a
fraternal dialogue. The Council of Bishops repeatedly referred to this idea in
its epistles, and in actual fact strove to open paths to this fellowship. In
this, however, great difficulties were encountered, and later—as far as we are
able to judge, due to the active interference of the authorities in Russia early
in 1997—our attempts at clarification were broken off (the seizure of the
monastery in Hebron).
Difficulties manifested themselves, firstly, in a totally different attitude
toward questions essential to the Church, and our differences in this regard
have not been resolved to the present day.
A) The question of the sainthood of the new martyrs and the Tsar-Martyr, the
anointed of God, who were slain by the atheistic authorities. From our point of
view, they fulfilled the principal mission of the Church of Russia in the 20th
century.
B) The policy of collaboration with the atheistic authorities begun by
Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) against that part of the Church "disloyal"
to the Communist overlords, which brought about the destruction of the former.
From our point of view, to defend this policy is to demean the struggle of the
New Martyrs.
C) The ecumenical activity of the Orthodox in the World Council of Churches.
From our point of view, this crosses the boundaries set by the holy canons and
the Tradition of the holy fathers, infringing upon the very truth of
Orthodoxy.
D) Relations toward the post-Communist leadership of the Russian Federation.
From our point of view, they are introducing a non-Christian policy designed to
break down the Russian people and destroy Russia. And this false spirit is in
nowise offset by the gilding of domes and the restoration of church buildings in
which these very leaders are praised.
Attempts at "dialogue" on these differences on various levels did not lead to
the hoped-for results. We acknowledge that in this certain of our
representatives are partly to blame, for in their haste to make the Truth clear
they insufficiently understood the complex conditions of the turmoil in Russia.
In the tumultuous sea of the last decade in Russia it was incredibly difficult
to make our Russian brethren hear the Truth of the Russian Church by which we
live—in unbroken succession and without the intrusion of malicious powers into
our ecclesiastical life. We were mistaken in our response to the situation in
Russia and in our search for reliable allies, being somewhat lacking in patience
and love for those opposed to us—which soon even became viewed as arrogance in
the eyes of the Russian people. Yet what we wished for was something quite
different. II. Over all the preceding decades, we had preserved spiritual fellowship
with those who did not submit to militant atheism, preserving Orthodoxy; and
our hearts were open to them, in whatever part of the Church of Russia they were
to he found. This fellowship was in part also in accordance with the canons of
the Church, so that when times of greater liberty came, these ties, this
presence in Russia, were also revealed. This happened because there was
preserved, and continued secretly to live, that part of the Church of Russia
which did not accept the "Declaration of Loyalty" (1927) imposed by the militant
atheists, wherewith Metropolitan Sergius tried to bind both the conscience of
all Orthodox people in Russia as well as our conscience (demanding that each
clergyman abroad personally sign an oath of "loyalty to the Soviet
authorities").
As the years passed, the word "schism" began to be applied to us and others
who were viewed as "disloyal"; this term continues to distort the eccelesial
crux of the question to this day. We have never accepted this term, and we do
not wish to apply it to others. This question is extremely painful, and must,
from our point of view, be resolved in some other way.
As early as 1923, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad resolved:
"Having as our immediate objective the nurturing of the Russian Orthodox
flock abroad, the Council of Bishops, the Synod, the hierarchs and priests,
within the limitations of their powers, must show all possible cooperation in
meeting various spiritual needs when asked to do so by the ecclesiastical
organizations which remain in Russia or by individual Christians." In
particular, it was stipulated: "Representatives of the dioceses located outside
the boundaries of Russia, acting together, express the voice of the free Russian
Church abroad; but no individual person, nor even the Council of the bishops of
these dioceses, represents itself as an authority which has the rights which the
whole Church of Russia possesses in all its fullness, in the person of its
lawful hierarchy."
The concept of the whole Church of Russia and a lawful hierarchy, according
to canon law, does not exclude the diaspora, but naturally embraces the totality
of the Church of Russia in the light of the Pan-Russia Council of 1917-1918. It
is impossible to restore this integrity by a process of rejection and exclusion
which have their origin with the militant atheists, who tried to set the
Orthodox people against one another, and for this purpose concocted the "Living
Church" and other obstacles. We consider that the interpretation of historical
and ecclesiastical judgment must be a joint task over which the Russian people—all of
us—must labor with great patience, first of all with love for
the Truth. Otherwise, there is the danger that we will fall to disentangle
ourselves from the snares, or may fall into them again.
We reject the word "schism," not only as one which distorts the crux of the
problem, but also as a lie against the whole Church of Russia concocted by the
enemies of Christ during the most terrible period of persecutions. We have never
accepted this lie concerning the Church, just as we have not accepted the lie
concerning the Church contained in the "Declaration," in which, to please the
regime of that time, patristic doctrine and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures were trampled underfoot. For this reason, our fathers declared in
1927: "The portion of the Church of Russia abroad considers itself an
inseparable, spiritually united branch of the great Church of Russia. It does
not separate itself from its Mother Church, and does not consider itself
autocephalous. As before, it considers its head to be the patriarchal locum
tenens Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, and commemorates him [as such]
during the divine services." At that time, we discovered that the lawful first
hierarch of the Church of Russia had rebuked his deputy, Metropolitan Sergius,
from exile, for "exceeding his authority", and commanded him to "return" to the
correct ecclesiastical path; but he was not obeyed. In fact, even while
Metropolitan Peter was alive, Metropolitan Sergius usurped, first his diocese
(which, according to the canons, is strictly forbidden), and later his very
position as locum tenens. These actions constituted not only a personal
catastrophe, but also a universal catastrophe for our Church.
We never left the Church, even though there have been those who began to
separate and drive us out with the word "schism" from those most terrible of
days even to the present—failing to grasp the main point, and still not being
aware of it. It is impossible to resolve contemporary ecclesiastical questions
by simply usurping the title "sole lawful ecclesiastical leadership," trampling
the tragic truth of the Church in Russia underfoot.
Our readiness, even over the last decades, to help the believing people in
Russia (as far as our weak powers permitted) in various ways (literature,
bearing witness concerning the persecution of the Church, protests) has not
changed. It has led to our receiving believers under our omophorion, and, for
various reasons, a small number of clergymen in addition to those who already
had had a secret existence for some time. In addition to the above-mentioned
reasons, others were added which entailed at the time intolerable violations of
the canons of the Church, and these were still uncorrected in 1989-1991. Then a
tempest arose over the "opening" of parishes of the Church Abroad in Russia. We
did not try actively to open parishes and foist ourselves on them from abroad,
but merely "accepted" those Russian people who had learned more about the
history of the Church and its life and yearned for ecclesial communion with us,
despite the barriers of a propaganda inherited from past times. This little
portion, for which our shortcomings did not overshadow the Truth and which, for
this reason, decided to unite themselves in Russia to our prayers, has been
subjected to persecutions, while our Church is slandered in all the official
church publications.
Yet the same leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, which on the new stage of
gradual liberation has exacerbated the situation by its own interpretation of
events and has so bitterly fought against the "parallel structure," has itself,
since the end of World War II, continuing to carry out the demands of the
authorities then in power, created its own structures where its was only
possible in the diaspora, and in Israel, in 1948, totally drove away our
monastics when establishing itself. At that time this was, for us, although
grievous, at least understandable—we saw the Church's lack of freedom and the
enslavement of officially sanctioned ecclesiastical structures in Russia, which
were fettered by the authorities and chained to the authorities. These latter years have witnessed a new wave of forcible seizures by the
Moscow Patriarchate of churches and monasteries from the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad in various countries, or attempts to seize them—with the help of the
secular authorities (foreign and Russian), wherever such is possible—in Italy,
Israel, Germany, Denmark, Canada. Now it is finally confirmed, even by the mouth
of the primate of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexis II, and representatives of the
Moscow Patriarchate's Department of External Affairs, that they have no desire
for unification with us on the proposed position of Truth. They prefer to
resolve the indicated points of disagreement and the question of the history of
the Church of Russia simply by eliminating the Church Abroad, by crushing it. In
other words, the present leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate prefers to
continue the policies of Metropolitan Sergius—only in a new form, at a new
level.
III. Thus, when we pose the question of succession, we have in mind not only
property title to the churches abroad. Regarding this question, it is well known
that the Soviet regime refused them, as it did "ecclesial obscurantism" in
general, when in the 1930's it announced its "five-year plan for atheism." It is
precisely the Russian emigration which was able to save these churches from
confiscation by foreign states and from destruction, carefully restoring them
with its own means as Russia Abroad, which is open with all its heart both to
the Russian past (tsarist Russia) and a Russia of the future. Therefore, this is
in actuality our joint heritage—the heritage of the whole Russian people, and
without fail it will be such as a result of the restoration of the one Church of
Russia, which stands in the Truth. However, to our distress, the past decade has
shown that the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate are avoiding true union, are
not ready for it, for this would mean that they would have to give an honest
account to the people and listen to its voice. This is also the reason why they
are violently seizing churches which have not been preserved by their efforts,
taking no account of the outlay of expenses, even though in Russia itself
thousands of desolate churches need to be saved.
It is obvious that the principal objective of this is the smothering of our
Church, and not the nurturing of the flock abroad, for here they do not in the
least fear the terrible scandalizing of that flock. Who among the emigrants will
enter those churches which have been wrested away by violence and wickedness?
One cannot fail to see that they are attempting to eliminate us as a vexing and
incorruptible witness to the 20th century history of Russia.
The main succession which we preserve and which our "opponents" in the Moscow
Patriarchate are trying to uproot in our person, is historical and spiritual.
After the militantly atheist Revolution, it was our Russian Church Abroad which
became the linchpin of that small portion of the Russian nation which did not
recognize the Revolution and chose as its path the preservation of loyalty to
our Orthodox state. This stubborn stand for the Truth, despite its apparent
"unreality," pressure from the Bolsheviks, from pro-Soviet hierarchs, and the
surrounding democratic world, was realized among us as a "struggle for
Russianism in the midst of universal apostasy"—in the hope that for this God
would have mercy on Russia and give our people a last chance to restore its
historic aspect. This was the primary purpose of the Russian diaspora. It is for
this that we have been praying in our churches for eighty years: "For the
suffering land of Russia" and "That He may deliver its people from the bitter
tyranny of the atheist authorities."
This refers also to the post-Communist regime of the Russian Federation,
which considers itself the successor not so much of historical Russia (this is
declared only rarely, and in words only) as the successor of the Bolshevik
regime. The entire legal system of the Russian Federation is founded on the
Soviet legal system, and not on the pre-Revolutionary laws.*
The present democratically elected officials in Russia have preserved the
majority of Bolshevism's atheistic symbols (the five-pointed star, etc.),
monuments, street and city names, ignoring the people's original intent: that
the Communist heritage be overturned, that the national tragedy of Russia in the
20th century be reassessed, that there be repentance. At the same time, a new,
anti-Christian ideology has taken root in the Russian land. And so as to weaken
the people's opposition to this, there is being waged an intentional, conscious,
calculated demoralization of the people themselves by cutting them off from
their true, historic and spiritual roots. And all of this is going on with the permission, consent and even blessing of
the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate which, in order to preserve its own
power structures, is prepared to collaborate with any regime whatever, and to
participate actively in ecumenism, not only with non-Orthodox Christians, but
even with non-Christian political powers. "By our joint efforts we will build a
new, democratic society," declared the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexis
II, in 1991, in an address made to rabbis in New York, where he preached peace
for all "in an atmosphere of friendship, creative cooperation and the
brotherhood of the children of the One God, the Father of all, the God of your
fathers and ours." How a similar irenic activity answers to our fate is
evident in the fact that not long ago, while in Israel for the feast of the
Nativity of Christ, the primate of the Moscow Patriarchate performed three
morally incompatible activities: he prayed to the God we have in common, Christ
the incarnate Son of God, then reached an agreement with the Moslems concerning
the seizure of one of our monasteries, and finally praised the destroyer Yeltsin
for "laboring for the good of Russia" and for his "efforts in restoring the
morality of our people."
IV. We are convinced that the intensifying persecution against the Russian
Church Abroad throughout the world is one of the steps being taken toward the establishment
of a new world order. Furthermore, peoples deprived of their own spiritual and
cultural originality, and Christian principles are being perverted and
undermined. Anti-Christian powers are achieving their objectives by employing
various methods, among which is the inciting of certain nations and confessions
against others, and often of a certain part of a nation against another, always
encouraging within the local Orthodox Churches those groups which are deemed
useful at a given moment, and denigrating those who oppose them. Is this not
what is taking place right now in the midst of Russian Orthodoxy? Is it not
obvious that there are powers which are striving to reduce the Church of Russia
to an ideological instrument—both the authorities of the Russian Confederation
and the "mighty of this world" who Stand behind them—for the control of the
Russian people'? How can we fail to remember the image of the harlot church
seated upon the beast, which is described in the Book of Revelation? And if the
Book of Revelation tells us: "Power was given him over all kindred, and
tongues, and nations. And all who dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose
names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear" (Rev. 13: 7-9), then it
would seem that over the past decade it has been entirely possible to discuss
and clarify in a "dialogue" in what way one ought to understand, following a
true, patristic interpretation of the Sacred Scripture (which every consecrated
bishop is obligated by oath to keep holy), that "there is no power but of God"
(Rom. 13:1-5). By this it may be possible to set aright the perversion of the
Orthodox Faith, terrible in its consequences, which is to be found in documents
being published in the name of the Moscow Patriarchate as in the name of the
Church of Russia itself.
Encroachment upon the sense of Holy Tradition hinders spiritual healing. Our
appeal continues to be ignored. the Truth of the Church is not being proclaimed;
false teaching is not being condemned.
We know that a significant part of the people and clergy of Russia are aware
of the danger of the situation, which is being manifested in many different
forms. Still, the neo-Renovationists, the ecumenists, and their opponents within
the "right-leaning" circles of the Moscow Patriarchate, who call themselves
"true catacomb Christians" despite all their irreconcilable differences, not to
mention the very leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, are united in spreading
the selfsame slander against our Church.
We know that our being situated outside Russia can seem "unpatriotic" to
some-as is proclaimed in the publications of the Moscow Patriarchate. Yet those
who attack us for this should read St. Athanasius the Great's "Apology for My
Flight," and the canons of St. Peter of Alexandria, to avoid unchurchly, secular
reasoning and to understand how the Holy Church has actually treated similar
questions.
We see in this fate of part of the Russian people, sent into the West by the
Providence of God, a call to understand the universal scale of the impending
apocalyptic period. We do not place our hope in foreign authorities when we
appeal to them, pointing out the principles of Justice (as the holy Apostle Paul
once appealed to his Roman citizenship so as to avoid violence united with
iniquity) when we demand the cessation of the iniquity inflicted upon the
"little flock" of Christ, our little Church. Justice is appealed to—as we avail
ourselves of a traffic light on a road—so as to insure elementary order for
all, among whom one may also consider the emigres who once saved themselves from
annihilation.
We place our trust in the One Holy Trinity, Whom we confess, and on the
wisdom of our people, who for a thousand years have confessed the unity of the
Trinity amid all the vicissitudes of history. We hope that, taught by its new
bitter experience, it will have learned a lesson from the 20th century through
which it has has just lived. The fate of Russia is in the hands of God and the
hands of the Russian people, if they desire to remain the people of God.
We, descendants of the various generations of emigres, who find ourselves
exiles in a foreign land by dint of the bitter dregs which our people drained in
the beginning, as well as many of the other peoples of the world (whose children
have since come to us for the salvation of Christ), hope to hold out until that
day when, through the supplications of our holy new-martyrs, Russia will be
moved by prayer to carry out its final mission—to bear witness before the world
concerning the Truth of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox form of government. As far as
our scant powers permit, we will always bear witness to this for those who have
ears to hear and eyes to see. Our goal, however modest, is not to allow anyone
to drown this Truth in the ocean of impending apostasy.
Forgive us, compatriots who are dear to us in Christ, for our mistakes. And
do not discard the Truth itself with our shortcomings and weaknesses. We call
upon you to be aware of the universal scale of the present Church problems, to
reunite with us in common prayer, and to deepen in our native land the struggle
of being Russian amid the conditions of apostasy—despite the policies of those
worldly and ecclesiastical authorities who do not value Russia's universal
spiritual vocation. Why is our existence disturbing to those who call us "a tiny
handful of schismatics?" Saint Mark of Ephesus demonstrated that the Truth is
not measured by the number of ruling hierarchs. All of Orthodoxy can be defended
by a single, solitary "schismatic." The holy apostles, the holy fathers and
teachers of the Church, the holy martyrs, call upon us, for the sake of Truth,
to withdraw from falsehood, from the imminent kingdom of the Antichrist, and to
struggle in love for Christ, that we may be written "in the Book of Life of the
Lamb, Who was slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear,
let him hear."
+Metropolitan Vitaly
+Archbishop Lavr
+Archbishop Mark
+Archbishop Hilarion
+Bishop Kirill
+Bishop Mitrofan
+Bishop Ambrosy
+Bishop Gavrill
+Bishop Mikhail
*In particular, ownership of church buildings, as before, is vested in the
government of the Russian Federation, not in the Church. This means that the
government is able, whenever it wishes, to deprive the Church of any given piece
of property. We cannot forget that in gratitude for its support in the founding
of the State of Israel in 1948, the latter gave to the U.S.S.R. all the property
of the Church Abroad located on territory controlled by the new state. Only a
small portion of that property was transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate; the
greater part was later sold back by the Soviet government to Israel at a purely
nominal cost, in exchange, in fact, for oranges.
Translated from the Russian by the reader Isaac E.
Lambertsen.
|