Category: A reminder of the
sad and shocking truths of what exactly the Stalin-founded 'Moscow
Patriarchate' was and still is all about-
and Fr. Lev Lebedeff's heroic attempts to wake up the leadership of the old ROCOR, to not submit nor to join
that bogus 'church' organization, before he conveniently suddenly died, 'naturally in his sleep',
which
closed his mouth in this world,...which the criminal gangster KGB/FSB
communist rulers of Russia [ who still run the Russian Federation today
and their dependent religious tool, the enslaved MP, have caused to
happen to many millions before him,]
before.... he could address the ROCOR bishops meeting in New York City, with his knowledgeable and factual warnings.
We who know the truths of what he knew, must echo his warnings.
Rd. Daniel in Oregon
A tribute to the late Archpriest Lev Lebedeff.
(Translator's introduction)
On Wednesday 29th April,1998 clergy and faithful members of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia were shocked to learn of the sudden
death of one of the most outstanding theological writers of our times,
Archpriest Lev Lebedeff. Fr. Lev had flown from his home in Kursk to New
York at the Metropolitan's request to address the Bishops' Council
which was due to meet the following week. Shortly after his arrival at
the Synod headquarters in New York City he went to his room to rest and
died in his sleep.
Fr. Lev's writings regularly appeared in
Russian in our Church's most serious publications, particularly "Russkiy
Pastyr" ("Russian Shepherd"), published in San Francisco, to which he
was a regular contributor. Taking copies of this journal from the shelf
at random one finds lengthy articles in almost every issue providing in
depth analysis of the most varied problems: "The spiritual essence of
modern business and commerce," "The ontological basis of Church
symbolism" "The nature of the Church and its hierarchy." They are less
well known to our English speaking readers, probably due to their
demanding nature and lack of suitable translations. Recently the editor
of "Russkiy Pastyr" asked me to translate an article of his on pastoral
problems into English, which I was unfortunately unable to do due to
time constraints.
The following articles are presented as a
tribute to the departed archpriest. It concerns matters which are
currently of great concern to our Church. They will repay close and
careful reading. Fr. Lev never approached any subject through
superficial arguments or slogans. Almost certainly, everyone will find
something to disagree with! Particularly worthy of note is his comment
that some of the problems facing the Church today, after all the havoc
wrought by the Soviet system in Russia, are simply too complex to be
addressed by the ordinary human mind, and can only be resolved through
the special help of Divine grace. One is also left with a profound sense
of our calling to be the "People of the Church," which is something
that hopefully will remain with the reader long after the present
controversy has subsided.
In translating the articles (all except the first, was translated by Fr. Christopher
Ed.) I have used the accepted initials ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad, which is the same as Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) and
MP (Moscow Patriarchate) wherever the author has done so. I have
eliminated much of his use of italics and exclamation marks, which are
not
as widely used in English as in Russian.
Protodeacon Christopher Birchall
3rd May 1998
Arch-priests Konstantin Fedoroff & Lev Lebedeff
Kursk Icon Hermitage, N.Y. June 1991
(Fr. Lev is on the right)
|
To
His Holiness, The All-Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexey
II, and Members of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate.
From a "laid-off" clergyman of the Kursk-Belgorad Diocese, Archpriest Lev Lebedeff.
A
reply to the "Epistle of the Local Council: 'To the Pastors, Honourable
Monks and Nuns, and ALL Faithful Children of the Russian Orthodox
Church'."
Your Holinesses, Respected Archpastors:
The
"Epistle of the Local Council," which was printed in Moscow Church
Herald, No. 13, 1990, was addressed to "all faithful children," i.e., in
part, to me, which means that it is possible for me to reply; which I
make bold to do, and send to you. In particular, I will speak to that
part of the "epistle" which refers to the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia (henceforth, the Russian Church Abroad).
I
know that many of you, reading my reply, will say, "but the same is
true of you, Fr. Lev." I want to emphasize that in this reply I am not
discussing the moral sins of any hierarch, but the ecclesiastical
posture of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the history of the Church, there
have been times when, to the defense of Orthodoxy, came not only holy
and righteous people, but also sinners like me.
As
is generally known, the "epistle," overall and what was said
specifically about the Russian Church Abroad, was not written on the
initiative of the Local Council, and not all the members of the Council
agreed with it.
Here is more proof that
this particular council was not free, but subservient and consciously
compromised; as has been every council held during the past 70-year
period of Russian history. Therefore, we should have gotten used to
this. And some already have. But...no. At the beginning of "perestroika"
and "democratization" and "glasnost", we started to have the illusion,
and the hope, that our church councils would represent the actual
thoughts and wishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, not the secret
directives of administrative bodies outside of the church.
Moreover,
finally one can raise objections to the Council in general, without
singling out sections of the "epistle", insofar as the latter throughout
reflects the overall intentions of the upper echelons of the hierarchy
of the Moscow Patriarchate. Because the initiative for the "epistle"
came from them. Therefore, in my reply, I will utilize the notion of an
"inner circle" within the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate. To it I
address my reply.
This "inner circle"
begins its reproaches in its address to the Russian Church Abroad with
the assertion that the latter "is not in communion with the Moscow
Patriarchate, nor any other local Orthodox Church." It is interesting to
know - why not? You yourselves, respected Archpastors, very well know -
why not? Why not tell the people candidly? Not far below, I will
attempt to fill in this blank.
But for
now, let's begin with what the authors of the section of the "epistle"
at hand are saying: that there are two churches, the Moscow Patriarchate
and the Russian Church Abroad; which is trying to establish parishes
"on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate." It seems that
to take such a stance comes either from incredible stupidity, or
incredible hypocrisy and Pharasaism.
We
don't have, and we never had, two Russian Orthodox Churches. There
always was, and is , and will be, the one-and-only Russian Orthodox
Church. In connection with the well-known historical (and canonical)
circumstances following the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergey
(Strogorodsky) in 1927, the Church within the borders of the Fatherland
came under the supervision of one church administration, and the Church
Abroad, under another. Within our Fatherland's borders, there was the
Moscow Patriarchate, whose hierarchy declared itself to be in accord
with the open enemies of God, separated itself from Holy Orthodoxy, and
since 1960 has entered into heresy, inasmuch as it has accepted the
ideology and practices of the ecumenical movement, as promoted by the
protestant World Council of Churches.
The
Russian Church Abroad, led by its holy Synod and its First Hierarch
(currently, Metropolitan Vitaly), has remained in the fundamentals of
Holy Orthodoxy, and is preserving in purity both Orthodox teaching and
the Church canons, not at all accepting ecumenism and modernism, to say
nothing of making compromises with atheists. From this it is clear what
any Orthodox person - the child of the Russian Orthodox Church - both he
living abroad and he within the bounds of the Fatherland - would
himself freely choose; which of these he would choose to rule the Church
and to subject himself to.
There's
where the truth is to be found! And it is perfectly proper that the
Russian Church Abroad has finally been given the possibility to accept
all those who wish to come under the spiritual/canonical authority of
its hierarchy.
The higher echelons of
the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate are accusing the Russian Church
Abroad, as if by its actions it were creating a "schism" and rift
within the "canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate,"
dramatically cautioning all of us with the words of the apostle to avoid
the bringers of divisions and temptations, and citing also the "holy
canons" of the Church. God is righteous! Shouldn't the high hierarchs of
the Moscow Patriarchate be ashamed to speak of "schism" and "holy
canons"!
Will you, archpastors of the
Moscow Patriarchate, speak of schism, when it is precisely you who
instigated this schism, when you blessed the communist regime (which
showed itself to not even be "communist") as the way to the "bright
future"; and afterwards introduced the heretical ideology of ecumenism?
Will you speak of "schism", when you yourselves have already made a
schism, rending the Robe of Christ, by setting up the Ukrainian and
Belorussian Orthodox Churches in the very bosom of what was the single
Russian Orthodox Church (or Church of the Moscow Patriarchate), which in
and of itself was the basis of the division of a single race into three
fraternal Slavic peoples?
Should you be
reminding others of the "holy canons" of the Church, when you have
knowingly violated many canons out of fear of reprisals, and have
expelled from your ranks and from the Church those who forbade joining
together in prayer with heretics; and have participated in so-called
"ecumenical prayers"?
I won't divert
your attention to the consideration of the canonical rules. And I won't
demonstrate to you that ecumenism is the "heresy of the 20th century",
as this has already been clearly and exhaustively demonstrated by one of
the most prominent theologians in contemporary Orthodoxy, Archimandrite
Justin Popovich (cf. his book, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism,
Solunh, 1974), and by the wonderful American Orthodox ascetic, Hieromonk
Seraphim (cf. his book, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future,
Platina, Calif., 1979) , and by many other faithful Orthodox.
In
general, you should not speak of "holy canons", when you have often,
openly disclaimed their divine inspiration, regarding them as merely
historical - rules of human discipline; keeping steadfastly one type
only out of them all: absolute obedience to the bishop. It is not for
you, higher bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, to talk about canons,
when some of you (with the consent of all) have bound yourselves up in
government service, and take the greatest delight in being allowed to
sit in the highest "organ" of Soviet government, underneath the canopy
of red cloth with its pentagrams and hammers and sickles, and the
likeness of the baldheaded leader - which is the ensign of the
ideo-political criminals in the 20th century.
Maybe
from your point of view, all of these things can be fit into the frame
of reference of "differing theological approaches" (to what?! to
whom?!), but what about "differences of opinion" with the texts of
Apostle Paul? All of you theologically erudite people, you've all read
the writings of Apostle Paul. Is it for me to remind you what he says
about heretics, how they must be separated from us (in addition to those
who foster "schism and temptations")?
And
even worse, are your shameful, apparently hypocritical words in the
"epistle", when you, the highest level of the Moscow Patriarchate, call
to remembrance the "blood of the martyrs and tears of the confessors",
which have bathed the much-suffering Russian land in the last 70 years.
For
until the most recent times, you have obediently toed the line of the
lying, atheistic propaganda, which said that there weren't any martyrs
of the faith: only political enemies of the Soviet regime. Even to date
you have not glorified them in the choirs of the saints. But the Russian
Church Abroad glorified these martyrs and confessors as early as 1981.
And
here is the point of the "epistle" which most especially underscores
the falsity of the whole audacious document. Not without a reason did it
come to be that the Church Abroad is not in communion with a single
local Orthodox Church. The time has come for us to tell - why. None
other than the Moscow Patriarchate, relying on the backing of the power
of the Soviet government, demanded, with ultimata, in the councils of
the local Orthodox Churches, the denial of the canonicity of communion
with the Russian Church Abroad, as long as it remains separate from the
Moscow Patriarchate. They don't want to be united with them, and they
are right! The Russian Church Abroad preferred to be left by itself, for
the very reason that the other churches have gotten themselves caught
up in the ecumenical movement, and worse things, besides.
Thereby,
the Russian Church Abroad has been left, in fact, as the solitary
stronghold of Holy Orthodoxy in the world; of the traditions and
legacies of Holy Russia! Honour be to her, and praise! Because not to
her, but to you, high pontiffs of the Moscow Patriarchate, do these
words pertain: "the sin of causing a division in the single Body of
Christ is not cleansed even by the blood of martyrdom."
But
aren't you aware, you high bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, don't
you know that we, the ordinary clergy and many simple believers,
understand this clearly and see it? Or do you think that we are all
idiots? I don't think so.
I think the
situation is a little different: being utterly absorbed in the lies of
this world, you cannot keep from lying at every turn. You have the feet
where the head should be; have proclaimed light darkness; lies truth,
and have clearly shown to all of us, and the whole world, that you serve
not Christ, but the devil, "for he is a liar, and the father of lies".
Archpriest Lev Lebedeff
June 21, 1990
DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROCA AND THE MP: WHY AND HOW?
by Archpriest Lev Lebedeff
I. What is happening?
Something that seems very strange at first sight! In our days within
the bosom of the ROCA a move towards gradual rapprochement with the MP
has made its appearance, admittedly, so far, just by way of dialogue,
and this notwithstanding the fact that to this day the MP has not
renounced a single one of its fundamental principles, which for 71 years
have made any dialogue with it impossible for the ROCA.
How is it
that this move towards dialogue has been able to make its appearance now
within the ROCA? People usually cite the fact that communism has
collapsed in Russia and the MP has become "free." But here it has also
become clear that in these new "democratic" conditions the MP freely
preserves everything that it has stood for since 1927, which is:
1. Serving, "not through fear, but as a matter of conscience," the mighty
ones of this world, whoever they may be, in the guise of serving Christ
(this is Sergianism);
2. The heresy of ecumenism, both as an ideology and as the practice of
joint prayer with heretics, which subjects the Orthodox participants in such
prayers to expulsion from their holy orders and excommunication from the Church;
3. Failure to recognize the Royal Martyrs and fully to recognize the New
Martyrs and Confessors of Russia.
To this has now been added the scandalous commercial activity of the MP and
its ties with the world of crime.
II. Why?
Knowing and seeing all this, how is it possible for Russian members of
the ROCA to seek dialogue with the MP? Some of the motivations for this
were very clearly discerned and expressed by Vladika Archbishop Mark of
Berlin and Germany. In his presentation to the "Round Table" (concerning
the relations between the ROCA and the MP) at the beginning of 1996 he
said that for certain Russians living outside Russia "national interests
take priority
over those relating to the Church." These people want
union (with the MP - Fr. L) only because they are Russian, or think
that they are Russian... But this cannot take priority over the Church,
or over the values of the Church. I can understand and share in this
pain, pain for one's people. But if this people is held in the clutches
of a monster, which is swallowing it up, then I must try to tear away
from it at least the hands and feet that I can grasp
hold of..."
("Messenger (Vestnik) of the Diocese of Germany," No. 2, 1996.) These
are magnificent words! They perfectly express the position of the ROCA
towards Orthodox people in Russia, who are truly being swallowed up by a
monster, which has two paws - the atheistic government and the ever
compliant Moscow Patriarchate! In the same presentation, a little
earlier, Vladika Mark gave this warning: "Our Orthodox Faith is not a
dowry of Russianness.. In the exaggeration of the national element there
lurks a great danger for all the Orthodox Churches, where this element
of nationalism can easily come to eclipse questions of faith."
III. Who initiated it?
However, at the very same time, in 1996, a dialogue was already taking
place in Germany under the direction of Archbishop Mark between the
clergy of the Church Abroad and the bishop and clergy of the Moscow
Patriarchate. In private conversations the same Archbishop Mark
explained this as follows. Now the ROCA is encountering serious
problems. Our Church is called Russian,
but there are less and less
Russians in it and the majority of our bishops are men of advanced
years; we must keep the Church Russian, otherwise we will have to call
it the Eskimo Church, or something else, which will be completely
absurd. Here Vladika Mark emphasized that his education had instilled
into him a love for Russia.
How these thoughts are to be
reconciled with those quoted previously, which he himself expressed at
the Round Table, can be explained by nobody other than Vladika Mark
himself. A year later, in his official explanation of his new policy of
dialogue with the MP, in his article "The strength of the Church is in
the unity of faith and love" ("Vestnik of the Diocese of Germany," No.
4, 1997), Vladika Mark completely confirmed what he had been saying in
private conversations. Thus, answering his own question as to what
unites us (with the Moscow Patriarchate) he wrote, "We are united by the
people of God, which we have been ordained to shepherd and to lead
along the path to salvation..." "We are all (i.e. the ROCA and the MP -
Fr. L.) responsible for the enlightenment of the once Orthodox Russian
people, as well as for its descendants outside Russia, and also for
those who have accepted the Orthodox faith as a result of the missionary
activities of Russian emigrants. Under these circumstances slandering
the Church Abroad by declaring it to be "schismatic" does nothing to
help the healing of the wounds of the Russian Church..."
Here,
it seems, is the main reason why, despite everything, a bishop of the
Church Abroad has entered into dialogue with those who are the source of
this slander against the Church Abroad (i.e. with the slanderers): it
is the "once Orthodox Russian people," inasmuch as it supposedly
"unites" the ROCA and the MP.
Here we must admit that we are faced
with a predominance of the "national interest," or "national element,"
even though closely intertwined with the values of the Church. It cannot
possibly be denied that people of non-Russian nationality can have a
sincere love for Russia and the Russian people. But the question as to
why, of all the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, it is Vladika Mark
who is the most concerned about preserving its Russianness and
generally about the situation of the National Church, is one to which
there is no satisfactory answer.
IV. The People of the Church
Vladika Mark chose his words well when he used the expression "the once
Orthodox Russian people." This expression presupposes that now the
Russian people is not Orthodox. And this is quite true. So how can it
unite the Orthodox Church? Let us look a little more closely at the
actual state of affairs.
It is a long time since a Russian
people united in the Orthodox faith and the Russian Church has existed
in Russia. In the present conglomerate of Russian speaking population
most people are atheists, but there are also fair numbers of Baptists,
Seventh Day Adventists, followers of Hare Krishna, Satanists, and
Pagans. These are all ethnically Russian people, who are well aware of
Orthodoxy, see Orthodox churches before their eyes and now have
every opportunity to read from a wide array of edifying Orthodox
literature, but consciously do not wish to be Orthodox. Neither the
hierarchs of the MP, nor, certainly, the hierarchs of the ROCA can be
"responsible" for such people. The Church bears no responsibility for
those who consciously remain outside the Church. So the supporters of
dialogue with the MP cannot be
referring to that "unchurched" part of the Russian speaking population.
Certainly, another concept is also used in the aforementioned article
by Vladika Mark - that of the "People of God." One might suppose that
this refers to the believing Orthodox people, the People of the Church.
The People of the Church outside Russia and in the bosom of the ROCA is
the flock of the ROCA. The MP makes no claim to it, bears no
responsibility for it, and can take an interest in it only with a view
to creating a new schism in the ROCA. The People of the Church in Russia
in the bosom of the MP is the flock of the MP. This flock has nothing
whatever to do with its kinsmen after the flesh living outside Russia;
this flock is completely faithful to
the hierarchs of the MP and
usually has a hostile attitude to the Church Abroad, or at best one of
indifference. For this People of the Church in the bosom of the MP the
bishops of the Church Abroad clearly cannot bear any responsibility. It
is the MP that bears the responsibility.
So where is the "People
of God" which "unites" the ROCA and the MP? Nowhere! Such a people
simply does not exist; it is a myth, an illusion.
To add further
clarification we must bear in mind that only in the 1920's and 1930's,
when masses of the real, old, and therefore Orthodox, Russian People,
brought up before the revolution, were still alive, although rapidly
dying out in the repressions, and with them there were multitudes of
real priests and many bishops faithful to Christ, although many of them
were already in prisons and in exile; only then was it still possible to
say that in Russia there was a People of the Church common to both the
ROCA and the MP. But after 1945 there is no such people. The USSR became
inhabited entirely by another, new, "Soviet people." The part of it
which had faith was also, with small exceptions, fundamentally also
completely Soviet in nature, in everything except atheism; it was in
accord with its "native" Soviet government, its "native" party, and with
its "native" Patriarchate
which was at one with the party, and which to this day it considers to be its Mother Church.
V. The Mother Church
The concept of the "Mother Church" is also being used by the members of
the ROCA who have begun dialogue with the MP. But with them this
concept gives rise to complications and leads to unimaginable confusion
and contradictions.
At first Archbishop Mark put forward an
idea, or an image or metaphor, which we can recognize as a real
contribution to our ecclesiastical thinking. In his Round Table
presentation in 1996 mentioned above, describing our disagreements with
the MP, he said, "We have clearly delineated the areas where we do not
agree. One of them is what is known as Sergianism, i.e. that through
which that part of the Russian Church, the MP, was conceived." A year
later, in his article "The strength of the Church is in the unity of
faith and love" Vladika Mark wrote, "The Russian Orthodox
Church is
our common (with the MP - Fr. L) Mother Church; this goes without
saying. However, by "Mother" we understand "that which gives birth." The
governing structures of the Moscow Patriarchate such as they have been
from 1927 to the present in their relationship with the Russian Church
Abroad cannot make any claim to be called the "Mother" which has given
birth to it."
In this extract it is not entirely clear why we
are concerned only with the relationship of the MP's governing
structures with the ROCA, and not with Christ, and with God's truth. But
let us focus our attention on the most important aspect. The image, or
metaphor, of conception and giving birth is very accurate and lets us
see everything in its proper perspective. Using this excellent metaphor,
we can clearly see that the Russian Church Abroad
is the direct,
natural continuation of its Mother, the Russian Orthodox Church, such as
it was from the beginning in Russia up to the revolution and even up to
1927. And then the Moscow Patriarchate was truly "conceived" and "born"
by what had fallen away from God's truth and from the Mother Church -
by Sergianism.
From this follows irrefutably what the Russian
Church Abroad has always said - that the Sergianist MP is not the
continuation (or daughter) of the Mother Russian Orthodox Church, that
the MP is a Bolshevik forgery of the Church. Consequently the ROCA and
the MP do not have a common Mother Church. Their "Mothers" are
different.
VI. The logic of the dialogue
But to make a
declaration of this nature to the representatives of the MP
participating in the dialogue would immediately make the dialogue
impossible and meaningless. A "dialogue of love" requires playing at
"equal rights," requires that we recognize the other side as being just
as "correct," "valid" etc. This is the inevitable logic of any
ecumenical "dialogue of love." So, once he had entered into the
dialogue, Archbishop Mark inevitably found himself forced to submit to
this purely ecumenical logic.
We cannot help noting that in the
above-cited extract from the April 1997 article it is no longer said
that the MP was "conceived" by Sergianism, it is said only that its
"governing structures" cannot be called the "Mother Church," which is
synonymous with saying that the ROCA and the MP have one, common Mother
Church... However, this is still an almost imperceptible slide into the
realm of untruth. The headlong rush into this realm took place in
December 1997 and was vividly expressed in the joint "Declaration" of
the participants in the 9th conference of representatives of the ROCA
Diocese of Germany and representatives of the MP.
The
untruth begins with the heading: "Declaration of the participants of
the ninth conference of clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow
Patriarchate and Church Abroad) on the territory of Germany." So the
heading immediately asserts what is supposed to be the ultimate
conclusion of the dialogue: that the MP and the ROCA are one - one and
the same Russian Orthodox Church. The heading further asserts that this
is a conference of no more and no less than the entire Moscow
Patriarchate and Church Abroad (on the territory of Germany). How
pretentious and deceptive this is! The Primate and Synod of the ROCA had
not empowered the clergy of the German Diocese to represent the whole
Church Abroad and express the opinion of the whole Church. The further
one reads, the worse it becomes. It appears that the two sides have
achieved "mutual understanding" and hope for a "fruitful broadening of
the path on which we have set out." What is the basis for this mutual
understanding and these hopes? They are based on the following:
1. Archbishop Mark and his clergy recognize themselves as children of the one (together with the MP) Russian Church;
2. above all, "they recognize the positive (!) development of Church
life" in the MP, - they recognize that the one Mother Church in its
"spiritual foundations" "is manifested in the spiritual life both in
Russia" (in vodka sales?) "and outside Russia";
3. "they have
agreed" and note that "the grace of the sacraments, priesthood and life
of the Church (!!) in the MP are not in question";
4. "They
recognize the essential fullness of Church life" in the MP (despite its
unshakable Sergianism, the ecumenical heresy, and the ties to the
Mafia!)
Such are the fundamental ideas of the "Declaration." And
there is not a single word about the fact that the ROCA and the MP were
"conceived" and "given birth to" by different "mothers." However there
is an admission that
"the problems which still exist between us... do not constitute an absolute impediment to Eucharistic communion."
What can you call all this? Let each reader chose the right word for himself.
VII. The reasons for the fall
We have already pointed out one of the reasons for this headlong
landslide into utter untruth: it lies in the logic of ecumenical
"dialogue." We cannot help recalling the explanation given by some of
the Fathers that the first mistake of our ancestor Eve was that she
engaged in any conversation (dialogue!) at all with the serpent - the
liar and slanderer (for he began immediately with a slander: "Is it
really true that God has forbidden you to eat from every tree in
Paradise?"). Vladika Mark, as we have seen, has also
testified to
the slander against the Church Abroad uttered by the MP. It must be said
that notwithstanding the "conferences" on the territory of Germany, the
MP is continuing to utter its slanders among its own flock. But outside
it, in "conferences" and "dialogues" in foreign territories the
representatives of the MP wallowing in ecumenical ideology and
psychology are always ready to recognize the "grace" and "fullness" of
Church life not only in the ROCA, but in any group you like - in
Christians of any confession, and now also with Moslems, Jews, Buddhists
and pagans. For the MP such compromises of their conscience have long
been commonplace in their multifarious "dialogues of love." But how is
it possible for educated and well-tried theologians of the Church Abroad
to start following this same ecumenical path?
The answer to
this can be traced to the very recognition of what is "ours" as being
"yours" and what is "yours" as being "ours." This immediately recalls
Metropolitan Sergius's "Declaration" of 1927. Even the formal motivation
is the same - "saving the Church" (the Church Abroad) which is growing
fewer both in its total numbers and in its numbers of ethnic Russians.
It is not just for its own sake, but for the sake of the Church that our
supporters of dialogue with the MP have entered into this inadmissible
dialogue with its enemies. And once they started talking they
have
suddenly "seen the light" and come to realize that these people are not
our enemies at all, but our "brothers," members of the "same, " or even
"one and the same" "Mother Church."
Can it really be that
Vladika Mark does not want to understand, or does not understand, what
Sergianism is? It would seem that he really does not want to, or does
not understand that which he openly admits. In his presentation to the
Round Table in 1996 he said: "They (the representatives of the MP - Fr.
L.) moved immediately from Patriarch Tikhon to Sergius and tried to
explain all the actions of Metropolitan Sergius on the basis that
Patriarch Tikhon had already laid out this path out beforehand. To a
certain extent this is true, in fact to a larger extent than I had
realized. (The MP has opened the eyes of a bishop of the ROCA who did
not know Soviet history - Fr. L.). But fundamentally, it is not true.
Where the line is to be drawn here, we have not yet clarified for
ourselves, but I think that we are on the way towards it."
If we
have still not clarified such an important question for ourselves, how
can we enter into dialogue with the MP, which is more experienced in
Sergianism and skilled in lies? It is hard to accept that such an
admission of ignorance is correct. In the ROCA it has been clarified
long ago based on fundamental principals where to draw the line between
concessions and compromises, which were made by Patriarch Tikhon, and
full scale fraternization with antichrist, in which Sergius engaged
together with his unlawfully constituted synod.
Under pressure
from the Bolsheviks Patriarch Tikhon certainly gave way within certain
limits. Usually this is defined by the concept of simple civil loyalty
to the Soviet government, which is to say, loyalty understood as
renunciation of any political struggle against it, recognizing it as a
competent civil authority. On this basis, in his famous "Statement" to
the
Supreme Court of the RSFSR of 16th June 1923, Patriarch Tikhon
repented of his "acts against the state system" and wrote: "from
henceforth I am not an enemy of the Soviet government." But when he was
later sadly asked why he had said this, his Holiness replied: "But I did
not say that I was its (i.e. the Soviet government's) friend."
"Not an enemy, but yet not a friend," - this was the formula for drawing
the line. And Patriarch Tikhon stood firmly on this line and did not
yield a further inch to his very death. It is well known and has long
since been proved that Patriarch Tikhon's so called "Testament"
("Testamentary Epistle") of 1925 is a forgery, fabricated by Tuchkov.
The Bolsheviks very
much wanted the Patriarch to issue this letter, they even wrote the text for him, but he did not issue it. He died!
In the 1927 "Epistle" or "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius
(Starogorodsky) something immeasurably greater than simple "civil
loyalty" to the Soviet regime is asserted. This is not simply a
"crossing of the line" in the form of further concessions or heaping
praise on the government, albeit false and hypocritical, but
nevertheless explicable - i.e. it is not simply an "adaptation" as
Vladika Mark calls it. The Declaration contains a deeply embedded
renunciation of serving Christ on the part of Sergius and his unlawful
Synod; and this in order "not out of fear, but as a matter of
conscience," as he here expresses it, always to serve only the enemies
of God or antichrists, in a spirit of complete unity with them! It was
not enough for Sergius to say, "Your joys and successes are our joys and
successes, and your failures are our failures," - he went on to
enumerate the "blows" directed against the Soviet Union which he,
Sergius,
categorizes as "blows against us," i.e. against his
"church": "The war, the boycott, any national disasters or simply
murders "like the one in Warsaw"." This murder in Warsaw was the murder
by B. Koverdaya of the Bolshevik Voikoff (also known as Weiner), who was
one of the principal organizers of the murder of the Imperial Family,
which fact was well known then, in 1927. So Sergius let the Bolsheviks
clearly understand that he and his entourage were at one with them in
all their evil deeds up to and including regicide. This is how it later
proved to be. And so it continues to this day. In the guise of serving
Christ the MP, "not out of fear, but as a matter of conscience" serves
the mighty ones of this world, whoever they may be, being always at one
with them in everything.
So it is one thing not to resist (where
this is impossible) the regime of antichrist, as something allowed by
God, and quite another to enter into complete union with it, approving
all the deeds and misdeeds of this regime, as if it were something
blessed by God.
Is it really not
clear where to draw the line here? The Bolsheviks, who were really just
like werewolves (their words and slogans said one thing, but in practice
everything was intentionally the opposite) tried not only to make the
Church obedient, but to create a Church organization in its own image
and likeness - in other words, also a werewolf, where in the guise of
serving Christ it was really antichrist who would be served. And this
is just what they did. But it was not through Patriarch Tikhon, but
through Metropolitan Sergius. This is the very nature of the MP to this
day, and it cannot change what it is.
This terrible nature of Sergianism and the MP was known and sensed by
the ROCA from the very beginning. On this subject there is the very well
known letter by Bishop Victor (Ostrovidoff) of Isha written in October
1927 and published many times since, in which he defines the essence of
Sergianism as expressed in the Declaration to be a "mockery and
desecration of the Holy Orthodox Church," as "renunciation of the
Saviour Himself," and as "a sin no less than any heresy and schism, but
in fact incomparably greater, since it casts a man directly into the pit
of perdition." This pit of perdition was "conceived" by the Moscow
Patriarchate, not by the Russian Orthodox Church, with which the MP
deceptively numbers itself, but from which it has really taken only its
outer wrapping, its clothing - its mask.
Both
this letter by Bishop Victor and a great multitude of other opinions by
the most authoritative hierarchs and clergymen about Sergianism and the
MP were very well known to our present supporters of dialogue with the
MP. Just as they knew of the anathema against ecumenism, ecumenists and
all who enter into communion with them which was proclaimed by the ROCA
in 1983. So how could our conference participants, before the MP has
renounced Sergianism and ecumenism, declare that the grace of the
sacraments and the very life of the Church in the MP must not even be
called into question and that they do not see any "absolute impediments
to Eucharistic communion" between the ROCA and the MP?
VIII. The sacraments
If there are indeed no questions about the Church life of the MP,
because it is not life, but a steady disintegration of Church life, then
the presence of grace - the validity of the sacraments - of the MP
always has been and still is very much in question!
On this question arguments among the Orthodox began in 1927 and
continue to this day. There is the well known letter of 1934 by the Holy
Hieromartyr Metropolitan Kyrill (Smirnoff), in which he writes that the
sacraments of the Sergianists are validly performed but they can be
unto salvation only for people "who approach them with simplicity of
heart, not suspecting anything untoward in the Sergian order of the
Church." For those who celebrate these sacraments, and also for those
who know about their apostasy and nevertheless, ignoring the truth,
approach them, these sacraments are performed "unto condemnation."
Apparently it is these thoughts that Archbishop Mark has in mind when
he calls upon us to "look closely" at the "irreproachable ecclesiology"
of Metropolitan Kyrill ("Messenger of the German Diocese" No. 4, 1997).
However, this ecclesiology is far from irreproachable, it received
numerous "reproaches" even then, in the middle of the 1930's. The
Hieromartyr Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) asserted the opposite: that
no sacraments are performed by the Sergianists, that they are invalid.
Many bishops in prisons and exile supported his point of view, as did
all the bishops of the Catacomb Church of Russia. Finally, in 1937,
shortly before his martyr's death (by shooting) together with Vladika
Joseph, Vladika Kyrill of Kazan wrote that since enough time had elapsed
since the Declaration of 1927 and Sergius had shown no repentance, "the
Orthodox have no part or lot with him." Our hieromartyrs did not then
know that the World War would take place, that the year 1943 would come
when great multitudes of people in Russia would turn to God and to the
Church out of fear, and Stalin would immediately make it possible for
the Sergians to create a network of diocesan administration throughout
the country, and to open up to 20,000 churches. The people who poured
into these churches were to a large extent already "Soviet," they knew
nothing about the Declaration of 1927, and they were sincerely seeking
Christ. Due to the speed with which this was being organized the
Sergians were forced to appoint a good number of decent men as bishops,
and these bishops conducted church affairs in the spirit not of Sergius,
but of Patriarch Tikhon. Hence for many people the question of the
validity of the sacraments in the MP again became - a question. The
question became more acute when the heresy of ecumenism made its
appearance in the MP in the 1960's. In our days it is the subject of
heated discussions among members of the ROCA in Russia. Opinions are
divided: some take the position enunciated by Metropolitan Kyrill in
1934, while others take the position of Vladika Joseph and the Catacomb
Church. There is no sign of agreement. It is clear that only a special
Council (Sobor) of the ROCA is competent, using the formulation "It
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," to resolve this question,
which is too complex a matter to be addressed by ordinary reason. So no
group of members of the ROCA has the right to declare in the name of the
whole Church that the grace of the sacraments of the MP "is not in
question." It is! Just look at the questions!
Even
if we accept Metropolitan Kyrill's 1934 ecclesiology it appears that in
the MP the sacraments act not for salvation but for the condemnation
both of the celebrants and for the great majority of those who know (and
by now they know full well) of their apostasy and their heresies, and
still receive the sacraments from them. Then even here there can be no
Eucharistic communion between the ROCA and the MP, since communing with
the members of the MP would mean partaking in their condemnation, and
such communion would turn into a consuming fire for all eternity. Hence
it follows that without trampling on his own conscience Archbishop Mark
cannot, even from considerations of "diplomacy," recognize the "positive
nature" and "fullness" of Church life in the MP.
IX. Where is the real Russian Church now?
The answer already seems clear. But on the way towards it stand some
historical and canonical misconceptions which the supporters of
rapprochement with the MP often latch on to, and which therefore need to
be completely laid to rest.
Ever
since 1921, in all its official documents the ROCA has declared itself
to be just a "part" of the Church of Russia, temporarily self-governing
in the conditions of the Diaspora, until the fall of the Bolshevik
regime in Russia. This was completely correct until 1937 - i.e. during
the period when many real Russian bishops were still alive, not having
recognized Sergianism, in prisons and exile, and also, as we have said
above, a significant part of the genuine Orthodox Russian people was
still alive, and consequently there was still hope that if, at that
time, the Bolshevik regime were to fall, the ROCA would immediately
unite with the liberated bishops and the liberated Orthodox in Russia,
Sergius and his unlawful "synod" created by the Bolsheviks would be
condemned and abolished, and the Russian Church would again attain to
full unity.
But what happened was
different. All the non-Sergianist bishops had been physically destroyed
by the end of 1937. By 1945 in other ways the entire genuinely Orthodox
people had also been destroyed. What replaced it was the "Soviet"
people that had been artificially cultivated since 1918, the believers
among which, with minor exceptions, were already completely faithful to
the Sergianist pseudo-patriarchate, as to their "Mother Church."
Once
this situation had come about the view of the ROCA as "part" of the
Russian Church was already incorrect, or not entirely correct, if we
take into account the fact that the ROCA really perceived her unity as
being with the catacomb communities in the USSR. In our days, and most
especially since the MP fell further into the blatant heresy of
ecumenism in the 1960's, and since by the middle of the 1970's the few
remaining people brought up before the revolution had all departed this
earthly life, the view of the ROCA as a "part" of the Russian Church has
become completely incorrect.
Now
the ROCA is not a "part," but the one and only lawful Russian Orthodox
Church in all its fullness! In full unity with it are those communities
in Russia which have united to her of their own free will since 1990, as
well as those few catacomb communities which joined it once their
canonical basis had been clearly established. The reason for this
situation, paradoxical though it appears at first, has already been
pointed out. The ROCA naturally preserves and is a continuation of
everything that was supported in Russia by the Orthodox Church (the
Mother Church) up to 1917 and even up to 1927.
The
MP bears no relationship to this Mother Church since, as we have
already said, it was "conceived" and given birth to by Sergianism in its
betrayal of Christ; this is the "Mother" of the MP. And if sacraments
are still celebrated in the MP, then this is God's mercy to those simple
souls, who alas are very few, who go to the churches of the MP, "not
suspecting anything untoward," as if to Christ Himself.
"The
Church is not tied to a particular place," said Patriarch Nikon in the
17th century. It is not, we would add, a Church of a geographic
territory. The Church is first and foremost the believing people lead by
its bishops and clergy. So wherever Russian people of the Church live
by the tenets of the Russian Church such as it was from the beginning up
to 1927, there is
the Russian Orthodox Church in all its fullness of grace.
However,
as a result of a certain mental inertia, as well as understandable
patriotic feelings, many Russians outside Russia have still not yet
grasped what has happened, and still will not believe that the genuine
Russian Church and Russian people, with the exception of the few
communities mentioned above, no longer exists in Russia, and so they
cling on to their conception of the ROCA as a "part" of the Church of
Russia.
It is precisely this
inertia, incomprehension and naive patriotism which are now being
exploited by the supporters of dialogue and rapprochement with the MP,
while they also draw inspiration and open support in their efforts from
the cunning MP.
They attempt to
pass off their wrong action as something holy and make haste in advance
to insure themselves by asserting that it is only the "enemy of our
salvation" and also certain anonymous "forces" that are interested in
deepening the confrontation between the ROCA and the MP. Even people
with a sincere zeal for Orthodoxy can, in the view of Archbishop
Mark, involuntarily become tools of these "hostile forces."
A very feeble defense! We can and, it would seem, we must say to
Archbishop Mark: "Respected Vladika, there are far more enemies of our
salvation and various "forces," both open and secret, whose interest is
first and foremost in destroying the Russian Church Abroad. For in her
is truth, in her is the voice of genuine Orthodoxy. In our times they
are trying to destroy it by way of schisms. And the latest schism is now
being created by you. You could not have failed to realize that your
words and actions directed towards rapprochement with the MP would bring
about a division, so far only on the level of ideas, within the ROCA, a
division between those who support and those who oppose your position.
So you have preferred unity with the apostate and heretical MP to inner
unity with the Mother Church which gave
you birth - the Church
Abroad. This is your decision! But do not attempt to pour oil on the
fire by deliberately accusing all those who disagree with you of
hindering God's work. It is they who are doing God's work."
X. The last word on "dialogue" and "love"
So the dialogue initiated by the representatives of the Diocese of
Germany of the ROCA with the representatives of the same diocese of the
MP is, we are convinced, purely ecumenical in nature, although the
participants on the ROCA side are far from sharing the ecumenist
ideology. As in the ecumenical movement, in this dialogue much is said
of the division of the Russian Church into different parts, as a result
of which it is essential to overcome this division with love. And even
when this suddenly occurs to those involved in the dialogue and they try
to escape from blatantly ecumenical categories of thought, they find
themselves forced to repeat the same thing that the ecumenists say,
which is that although the Church is visibly divided, it is invisibly,
somewhere in its deepest essence, nevertheless one... So our
participants in the discussion with the MP have fallen into the
ecumenical trap which they have laid for themselves.
But
still, how are we to treat the MP, should we really not speak to them
at all? In fact the dialogue between the ROCA and the MP has been
continuing since 1927, without breaking off for a single day! And, by
contrast with Vladika Mark's dialogue, this is a real dialogue, full of
genuine love on the part of the ROCA, and does not involve playing at
"equal rights."
In countless
books, articles, sermons and letters the ROCA has called upon and
continues to this day to call upon the MP to really repent, before God
and its own People of the Church, of the sin of Sergianist apostasy, and
put an end to it; and of the ecumenist heresy, and to put an end to it
as well. It calls upon it, after cleansing itself through this
repentance, to join in the glorification of the Holy New Martyrs and
Confessors of Russia already initiated by the ROCA, and only after all
this, to think about holding a common All-Russian Church Council.
These
appeals have varied in tone between calmness, anger, exhortation and
reproof. But they have always been filled with pain for Russia, for its
deceived Orthodox people, and in this pain is real love.
Only
in this way can the real Orthodox Church, as the Body of Christ, and
whose head is Christ Himself, talk to, and carry on dialogue with, those
who have fallen away from it. This has been in the very nature of the
Church from the beginning. Here for example is what that well known
defender of Orthodoxy, St. Maximus the Confessor, said in the 7th
century: "I do not desire heretics to be tormented and do not rejoice in
their evil - God forbid! But I rejoice the more so in their
conversion... I have not so far lost my reason as to value mercilessness
above love for others... But despite this I say that heretics cannot be
helped by confirming them in their insane beliefs, here one has to be
blunt and uncompromising. For I call it not love, but hatred for one's
fellow men and a falling away from Divine love when anyone confirms
heretics in their errors, leading to the inevitable perdition of these
people." This is why the ROCA has never confirmed the MP in its errors
by hypocritically recognizing its "lawfulness" and "fullness," the
"grace of its Church life," or that it is supposedly a "part" of the one
Russian Church, for the inevitable perdition of whatever is still alive
in the MP.
To this day the MP
has responded to this blunt and uncompromising approach only with
cunning, lies, slander, deception, intrigue and attempts to create
schisms in the ROCA. How the MP will respond in the future is for it to
decide. So the dialogue is not finished, it continues. And this is the
only kind of dialogue that is possible, not an ecumenistic dialogue of
false, deceptive "love". As I was finishing work on this article, I
received two documents: a letter from Archbishop Mark to the members of
the Synod of the ROCA dated 30th January / 12th February 1998, and his
Lenten letter to his flock dated 17th February / 2nd March 1998. The
Lenten letter notes that the activities of Vladika Mark, especially the
"Declaration" of the participants of the 9th conference in December
1997, had "stirred up a storm" within the Church Abroad. However, in
both documents Archbishop Mark blames anyone and anything except
himself. He retains all his views on the need for rapprochement with the
MP. At the same time he writes of the desirability of open discussion
of all these problems. It is a sorry sight to behold a bishop of the
Church Abroad being increasingly "swallowed up by the monster" of the
cunning and lies of the Moscow Patriarchate. Are there any "hands and
feet," which, to use his vivid expression, "we can still grasp hold of,"
in
order to tear Vladika out of the clutches of this monster? And who is there that could do it?
Archpriest Lev Lebedeff
Great Lent 1998
Kursk.
Archpriest Lev Lebedeff
Report to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
1. THE PERIOD WE ARE LIVING THROUGH
The
world and humanity, plunging ever deeper and more rapidly into the
state of Sodom and Gomorrah, are moving inexorably towards completion of
the new Tower of Babel of the "new world order" - in other words,
towards Antichrist. After him will follow the Second Glorious Coming of
Christ. This is the essence of the point in time through which we are
living.
2. THE POSITION OF ORTHODOXY
Against the background of
these occurrences and in the context of them it is especially sad to see
the majority of the once Orthodox local Churches being actively drawn
into this world wide construction process through the ecumenical and
interfaith movement, and drawing their flocks into the Ziggurat of this
new Babylon. The only significant island of God's truth still left in
the world is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia ("ROCA"). Some
of the Old Calendar groups in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as
individual zealots of Orthodoxy in other countries have become smaller
islands standing firm in the truth.
3. THE POSITION OF THE MOSCOW "PATRIARCHATE"
The
Moscow Patriarchate ("MP"), which was unlawful (uncanonical) in its
very origin, is by its nature an ecclesiastical organization which,
since 1927 and in the guise of serving Christ, has been actively serving
Antichrist. Therefore it is far from surprising, in fact it is
completely logical, that now the MP is actively taking part in
constructing the Babylon of the new world order; this was stated
precisely and accurately in the "Appeal" dated 30 October / 12 November
1997 from the Conference of ROCA Bishops in Russia held in Yalta.
The
occasional outbursts of anti-ecumenical sentiment within the MP as well
as protests by individual members of its clergy against countless other
acts of departure from the truth are nothing more than the feeble
convulsions of an organism that is dying or already dead.
All this is
attributable to the fact that the present Russian speaking population
of the Russian Federation, including that part of it which professes the
Orthodox faith, is in a state where it completely "believes a lie."
This is to be typical of people in the times of Antichrist and is
described by St. Paul as God's punishment "because they received not the
love of truth" (II Thess. 2, 10-11).
4. THE POSITION OF THE RUSSIAN SPEAKING POPULATION OF RUSSIA
The
entire Russian Orthodox people (including some 80 million people in the
central part of Russia alone), together with Holy Russia itself, was in
large measure physically destroyed during the period from 1917 to 1945 -
in just 28 years! Thus it was that the Lord granted the Russian People,
through crucifixion on the Golgotha of history, to attain to a
victorious resurrection in the Jerusalem on High of the Kingdom of
Heaven, thereby removing this people from the contemporary historical
process. At the same time starting in 1917 a new "Soviet people" was
artificially cultivated in the USSR - a "new historical community" as
the party and government of the USSR expressed it in 1977.
But when
put to the test this "new Soviet people" proved to be not even a people,
since it has no sense of its own unity, but a conglomerate of Russian
speaking population, and it has completely gone to pieces since 1991.
Therefore, with the exception of a small remnant of Russians living
abroad, at the present time the Russian people no longer exists on this
earth.
5. THE STATE OF THE RUSSIAN SPEAKING BELIEVERS
The Russian
speaking believers in Russia are characterized by a predominance of
earthly interests over spiritual, by an underhand, dishonest psychology,
by "believing a lie," and by "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable" (Rev. 21,8). Magic and sorcery have spread to an
extraordinary degree. Nobody seeks Christ and His righteousness: each
seeks only "his own." What really proves this is that since 1990-1991,
in circumstances of real freedom of conscience in Russia, the Russian
speakers have not turned en masse, as an entire people, to the Church
and to Christ.
A certain insignificant revival of faith and a trickle
of young people into the Church has taken place, but now even this is
on the wane. If we go by the statistics, at the present time in the
Russian Federation there are no more than 15-20 million Orthodox
believers, and only half as many regularly attend church. According to
the data of the MP, while as recently as 1993 voluntary donations from
individuals made up 43% of all the "patriarchate's" revenues, in 1997
they represented only 6%! The "patriarchate" obtains the rest from
usurious money-lending, trading in oil, vodka and tobacco and from other
forms of "business," as well as from poorly understood foreign sources.
It
is sometimes said that in Russia there is no small number of good, fine
people. But the same could be said of the Catholics and Protestants in
any western country. It is also said that in Russia even now one can
find, even in the bosom of the MP, pious people zealously struggling in
prayer and fasting. But it is important to understand that these are not
the first rays of sunrise, but the last rays of the sunset. On a
rubbish dump you might find antiques, icons and even things made of
gold, but still it is not a palace and not a temple, but just a rubbish
dump.100 years ago, in 1899, Vladika Anthony (Khrapovitsky) wrote of the
"unchurched" part of Russian society of his time: "It is no longer a
people, but a rotting corpse, which takes its rotting as a sign of life,
while on it, or in it, live only moles, worms and foul insects... for
in a living body they would find no satisfaction for their greed, and
there would be nothing for them to live on" (Talberg, "History of the
Russian Church," Jordanville, 1959, p. 831). At the end of the last
century and the beginning of our twentieth century this rotting part of
the Russian population made up about 5 - 6% of the total. Now, at the
end of the twentieth century, in Russia it constitutes 94 - 95%. The
entire Russian Federation taken as a whole is a "rotting corpse."
6. THE POSITION OF THE ROCA IN RELATION TO THE MP
One
cannot but admit that the apostate, heretical and criminal state of the
overwhelming majority of the MP hierarchy corresponds entirely to this
state of society as a whole; it is one of the "moles" or "worms"
greedily devouring whatever it can still find to devour in the rotting
corpse. Under these circumstances what can the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia have in common with the Moscow "Patriarchate"? Nothing!
Hence it follows that any kind of "dialogue" or "conference" with the MP
with the aim of clarifying "what divides us and what unites us" is
either an abysmal failure to understand the essence of things or a
betrayal of God's truth and the Church. What divides us is literally
everything! And what unites us is nothing, except perhaps the outward
forms of church buildings, clerical vestments and the order of services
(but not in all respects even here).
Therefore it is necessary to
realize clearly and confirm officially that now the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia is not a part of the Church of Russia, but the
only lawful Russian Church in all its fullness!
We must also
understand that this is realized by the Moscow "Patriarchate." This is
the reason why it is seeking to be recognized just as it is (without
rejecting its apostasy and heresies) by the ROCA. Such "recognition" of
the MP by the ROCA would provide the MP with the appearance of
legitimacy in the eyes of the entire world. But this cannot be allowed
to happen.
The ROCA must renounce its dreams and illusions regarding
the "rebirth of Russia." Unless there is to be some extraordinary and
unpredictable intervention of God in earthly affairs, and assuming that
by His permission and providence everything continues in the same
direction as at present, then Russia is finished. May God only grant
that through excessive attachment to Russia the ROCA will not plunge
together with it into the abyss of perdition. Now it is necessary just
to "hold fast to that which you have." And if one's soul still suffers
pain for the Russian speaking population of Russia, then it is only
through constant and firm reproof of the MP, and not through making
advances towards it, that it is possible to save those in Russia who
still seek salvation and are capable of accepting it.
It is therefore
essential to return to the uncompromising attitude towards the MP which
was taken by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia from the
beginning. And it is quite wrong, under the pretext of "the good of the
Church" and "operational efficiency," to undermine the authority of a
Primate of the ROCA who is capable of distinguishing truth from
falsehood and of "discerning the spirits."
Recently the ROCA has been
afflicted by a whole series of disasters one after the other. The
murder of the guardian of the miraculous Myrrh-streaming Iveron icon was
especially terrible. Remember that the miraculous flow of holy oil from
it began in 1982. Just before that the ROCA had glorified the Holy New
Martyrs of Russia, lead by the Royal Family, among the choir of the
saints, and in 1983 the anathema was proclaimed against the heresy of
ecumenism. It is clear that the flow of holy oil from the Iveron icon
was a sign of God's approval of the ROCA for its firm stand in the truth
against all kinds of falsehood, including the falsehood of the MP. But
now it is after the very indecisive resolutions of the Bishops' Council
of the ROCA in 1993 and 1994 and the subsequent steps taken by some of
our hierarchs towards rapprochement with the MP that these disasters
began, one after the other - disasters which bear witness to the
withdrawal of God's beneficence towards our Church, because of its
deviation from the truth. How many more disasters do the supporters of
fraternization with the criminal and heretical MP wish to bring down
upon us?
May 1998
Address given by Metropolitan Vitaly at the funeral of Archpriest Lev Lebedeff
Christ is Risen!, Christ is Risen!, Christ is Risen!
In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Today
we have held the funeral of an outstanding pastor of our Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia and prepared him for burial and for his
eternal repose in the Heavenly Kingdom.
Through his death each
Orthodox Christian, even the most insignificant person in society,
always leaves some kind of spiritual lesson and edification. For each
Christian, if he is in some measure a Christian, fulfills at least one
word of the Gospel in his life. How much the more does this apply to
such an outstanding pastor as was Father Archpriest Lev Lebedeff, who
lived his whole life in full view of all! He has left us a remarkable
example and spiritual lesson.
We are all sinful people. We are all,
without exception, given over to passions, or vices, but with most of us
our passions overtake us and often darken our reason and the feeling
powers of our hearts, to such an extent that we lose our objectivity and
our view of the world becomes somewhat distorted.
Father Lev
Lebedeff was no stranger to human passions and we all know this. He did
not conceal it, but he had a special gift of the Holy Spirit and this
passion of his in no way clouded his reason or the powers of his heart.
He always saw exactly what was right and what was not right, truth and
falsehood, and he expressed his thoughts boldly and openly. This is a
very rare gift of God, when a human passion is quite unable to affect
the human thought processes and the feeling powers of the heart. Fr. Lev
Lebedeff preserved this special gift of God throughout his life. This
is why we listened to him. And this is why we considered him to be a
most worthy pastor. So may God grant us to receive even a tiny fraction
of this gift - to receive God's gift of seeing truth and falsehood and
their utterly opposite nature in full clarity.
Most Reverend Bishops, that is exactly what I wish with all my heart for all of us. Amen.
Metropolitan Vitaly
May 1998
No comments:
Post a Comment
Guest comments MAYBE can be made by email.
joannahigginbotham@runbox.com
Anonymous comments will not be published. Daniel will not see unpublished comments. If you have a message for him, you need to contact him directly.
oregdan@hotmail.com