Dan Everiss
<oregdan@hotmail.com> | Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM |
|
|
Brief comment response of
Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel, to a new historical -nostalgic article
written by, in Lyons, France, Protodeacon Germain-Ivanov- 13, regarding
the past better days of the old free ROCOR,
etc:
Machine translation:
Yes,
for me, these are also difficult questions, for which there is no one
answer.
I think that the human soul dies: "If the salt loses its strength, what
will you do to restore its saltiness? It is no longer useful. "
Previously, among us were living people-examples, which we can and
should imitate. Yes, they have all died out. As I have
written before, and now I still consider it to be true, that the last real Russian bishop, was Metropolitan Vitaly.
Yes, the bishops, from then to - now, and those who
were in the past, the real priests, are extinct. They have not been
replaced, and never will they come again, as the river of life, is
already different, the water that was in it, has
gone from us forever. At least we can remember some of them, for the
next generations? But now, we do not have human examples in life, and we
shall not have them, anymore. We can be saved only by being held in
the bosom of Holy Tradition, preserving the
canons and rules, as the precious covenant of our spiritual Fathers.
"Hold what you have" is all that remains for us today. And- the hope of
God's mercy
Metropolitan Agafangel
Да, для меня это тоже трудные вопросы, на которые нет одного
ответа. Я думаю, что душа человеческая умирает: "Если же соль потеряет
силу, то чем сделаешь ее соленою? Она уже ни к чему негодна". Раньше
среди нас были люди-примеры, которым можно и нужно
было бы подражать. Да все они вымерли. Я раньше писал, и сейчас считаю
последним настоящим русским архиереем Митрополита Виталия. Да что
архиереи - сейчас и священники настоящие вымерли. Им не пришла смена, и
никогда уже не придёт - река уже другая, вода,
которая была, ушла навсегда. Нам хоть можно кого-то вспоминать, а
следующим поколениям? Нет у нас в жизни примеров, а у них - тем более не
будет. Спастись можно, только удерживаясь в лоне Предания, сохраняя
каноны и правила, как драгоценный завет наших духовных
Отцов. "Держи что имеешь" - это всё, что нам сегодня остаётся. И надежда
на милость Божию
==================================================================================================================================
|
|
Introduction to the English Edition of
"Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church"
In the Orthodox Church many of the most profound theological works
written by the great Church Fathers were written not for the mere sake
of discoursing on the sublime truths but to defend the faithful against
the appearance of an error -- an innovation,
a human invention alien to the Divinely inspired Truth preserved by the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Often the Fathers of the
Church would have preferred to keep silent, continuing in prayer and
living the truths of Divine Revelation, which
can at best be imperfectly reflected in human words. The discourses they
have left in defense of the Faith are very often more in the nature of
fences surrounding the Truth -- declaring what God is not, while God in
His essence remains unfathomable to the
human mind. Nevertheless, as a result (one might say as a by-product) of
their polemical writings, we have received from the Church Fathers a
rich heritage of inspired theological writings which help us to better
understand what Orthodox Christianity really
is.
The present work falls into this category. Unfortunately, however, it
will not be valued in this way but rather in terms of the reader's
sympathies (or lack thereof) for the present day church organization in
Russia known as the Moscow Patriarchate. However
in future generations if, God willing, these ecclesiastical troubles
cease to be of any practical relevance, this little book will continue
to be of great value in terms of what it teaches us about Divine Grace
and about the subtle but vital distinction between
the realm of the soul and the realm of the spirit in man.
Bishop Theophan the Recluse summarizes the traditional teaching of the Church as follows:
"The natural relationship between the component parts of man should
follow the law that the lesser should be in submission to the greater,
the weaker to the stronger. Thus the body should be in submission to the
soul, and the soul should submit to the spirit,
while the spirit in accordance with its nature should be fully immersed
in God. Man should abide in God with all his being and consciousness.
Here the power of the spirit over the soul depends on the indwelling of
the Divinity, the power of the soul over the
body is dependent on the soul being ruled over by the spirit. When man
fell away from God, inevitably man's whole structure fell into disarray.
The spirit, having departed far from God, lost its strength and
submitted to the soul, while the soul, no longer
being held aloft by the spirit, submitted to the body. In all of his
being and consciousness man became mired in sensuality. Before taking
upon himself the new life in the Lord Jesus Christ, man finds himself in
just this state where the relationship between
the component parts of his being is turned on its head, like a telescope
when its different sections are collapsed one into the next."
Professor Andreyev was well qualified to understand this along with all
its practical implications in the Soviet "paradise." A devout Orthodox
believer and confessor of the faith in times of persecution, he was also
a qualified physician and psychologist. Ivan
Mikhailovitch had three doctorates: in medicine, literature and
philosophy, which he obtained from St. Petersburg University shortly
after the outbreak of the revolution. However some years earlier he had
been expelled from the gymnasia (high school) where
he has studying on account of his own revolutionary ideas and sent to
study in Switzerland. He had been raised in Orthodox piety but in his
late teens went through a period of "rebellion" and became a very
serious young man, questioning everything and seeking
to find the true meaning of life, which at first he saw in revolutionary
ideas which were popular with many of his contemporaries. During his
studies in Europe he began to study philosophy (Bergson, Bulgakov,
Lossky, Askoldov) and in this way gradually, step
by step, came to understand the profundity of what was present in the
Orthodox Church. He returned to Russia at the outbreak of the
revolution, already clearly understanding the emptiness of materialism
and atheism. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did
not become sidetracked in a pseudo-Orthodox combination of traditional
teachings and modern inventions. He sought the true spiritual path of
Orthodoxy. A decisive point in his life occurred in 1926 when he made a
pilgrimage to venerate the relics of St. Seraphim
of Sarov at Diveyevo monastery. During the special rule of prayer
prescribed for pilgrims he suddenly became vividly aware of the reality
and closeness of God and of an entirely real communion in prayer with
Him. He asked to be deprived of all earthly things
if only he could remember until his last day this blessed experience of
the "quiet, joyful gentle and fragrant wafting of the Holy Spirit of the
Lord." He wrote: "Everything had become new within me. Previously I had
not understood such a simple truth, that
spiritual things are more distinct from those of the soul than the
latter are from bodily things. But now I understood this well. Within,
in the depths of my soul, it was quiet, calm, joyful. The outward
miracles at the shrine of St. Seraphim, which occurred
before my eyes, did not astonish me. All this seemed simple and
natural."
This is a quite astonishing statement, that there is a greater
difference between the spirit and the soul than there is between the
soul and the body. Mostly we do not clearly appreciate this at all --
that all the wonderful "heritage" of Orthodoxy which so
impresses the outside world -- icons, singing, the order of our church
services -- is only a vessel which contains, and makes us more receptive
to the actions of the Divine Grace of God. By the same token it is
quite possible to maintain a humanly constructed
facade containing all the outward elements of the Orthodox "heritage"
but lacking the true contact with the Living God. Blatant examples of
this are the Uniate church, which is not Orthodox at all, but Roman
Catholic, and the self-consecrated Ukrainian church,
which was formed by nationalists in the 1920Õs and had no semblance of
an apostolic succession in the consecration of its hierarchy whatsoever.
It is only in rare moments of enlightenment that we are able to
perceive this distinction between the things of
the soul and those of the spirit in full clarity. Mostly we must have
recourse to the Canons of the Church to help us in our need to "discern
the spirits, whether they be of God," to avoid the risk of being
deceived and accepting a surrogate in place of the
Church of Christ. This is not a question of following the letter of the
law, or self-righteously claiming to belong to the "right" jurisdiction,
but rather following the striving of a loving heart which thirsts for
prayerful communion with the Living God.
Thus this theme of distinguishing between the things of the spirit and
the things of the soul was fundamental to Andreyev's understanding of
Orthodoxy. It was only natural that he would apply it to find a way
through the most burning problems of the day --
those caused by the Soviet persecution of Orthodoxy and the creation of a
church apparatus subservient to the Soviet state following the infamous
Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927. It is this ecclesiastical
organization that Andreyev refers to as
the "Soviet Church." He was actively involved in protesting against the
declaration and then suffered imprisonment and exile for his religious
views. In the 1930's he formed part of the "Josephite" movement of the
catacomb church. Thus his convictions were
far from being an abstract form of philosophizing, but on the contrary
were born out by his own personal sufferings. The article appended at
the end of this book gives a vivid illustration of this period in his
life. During the German occupation Andreyev managed
to escape to the west and in later life he became a teacher at the Holy
Trinity Seminary at Jordanville, New York, where he was buried after his
repose in the Lord in 1976.
During Andreyev's lifetime the Soviet Church was clearly enslaved to the
Communist regime. Nobody ever imagined that it could outlive the Soviet
system which had created it. In his book, "Motives of my Life,"
Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko wrote of how, in past
ages, those who had fallen during times of persecution had been treated
with varying degrees of condescension. Looking forward to the day of the
collapse of the Soviet system, he urged compassion towards the
repentant hierarchs of the Soviet Church who he
assumed would be subjected to due ecclesiastical judgment by those who
had not submitted to the communist yoke, which group would include the
emigre hierarchs of the Church Abroad. What never seems to have been
contemplated by earlier generations of hierarchs
was that the Soviet Church would continue its existence, going from
strength to strength, after the collapse of the Soviet system itself.
Yet this is precisely what we see today, with the same church
organization continuing its existence as a powerful ally
of the emerging "post-Soviet" Russian state. Andreyev's profound
analysis provides a basis for orientation in approaching the problem of
the status of this organization. Specifically, he addresses the fallacy
of the widespread "bottom up" approach to ecclesiology,
which says that because many suffering, sincere people seek God within a
given church organization it must be the true one. This approach, one
could say, denies the Divine-Human nature of the Church and makes it
only human-democratic. As a professional psychologist
and a Solovki confessor he is the ideal spokesman for explaining this.
It should be noted that Andreyev does not conclude with a categorical
conclusion that the "Soviet Church" is deprived of the Grace of God,
only that there are grounds for uncertainty: "Therefore
we do not have communion with the Soviet Church, because we have doubts
as to whether the Grace of God is present." We can recall the attitude
of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, who had initially counseled caution in
separating from Metropolitan Sergius. In the
late 1930's, shortly before his execution, he wrote in a letter that
since enough time had passed since the Declaration and Metropolitan
Sergius had shown no sign of repenting, "the Orthodox can have no part
or lot with him." "No part or lot" may not be a
precisely definied scientific term, but its practical implications are
quite clear. Andreyev's contribution is to demonstrate quite clearly,
and in fact frighteningly, how it is perfectly possible for an
organization to have retained all the trappings of an
Orthodox "heritage" but have lost the essential thing, the one thing
that is needful, the presence of the Holy Spirit of God.
As a philosopher who had come to Orthodoxy after a long intellectual
search, Andreyev never lost sight of what is called "Apologetics" -- the
study of why we believe as we do and how to explain it to others. His
understanding of the difference between things
of the soul and things of the spirit makes a very important contribution
in this area in the face of present day indifference and unbelief. On
the one hand we are surrounded by other forms of Christianity, which
appear to have many of the same things as the
Orthodox Church. People turn to God in prayer, they read the same
Gospels that we have. And yet --an Orthodox soul will find that these
religions are just religions, ultimately religions that it is possible
not to believe in, because they are missing that
"One thing that is needful." They fall down before the onslaughts of
present day psychology which says that religions are the opium of the
people and just feed certain needs of the psyche, or human soul.
Andreyev is saying in effect, "Yes, you are quite right,
it is quite possible to have a religion which is just made up of
psychological effects." The same psychologists would look at our
churches and say they too are just made with human hands. The
iconostasis is carved out of wood, the altar table is erected and
covered with cloths, we hang a lamp outside the sanctuary, and the lamp
is made of glass and metal and filled with olive oil. Then we train our
singers and organize church services of astounding majesty and beauty,
but these too are all material and psychological
effects. And Andreyev as it were replies, with that characteristic
twinkle in his eye which you see in photographs of him, "Yes, I agree,
it is quite possible to have the most impressive religion which would
still be one that I would not believe in. That is
why we are so cautious not to be deceived, because all you unbelieving
psychologists are quite right, many of these religions really are human
creations. What the Orthodox believer is seeking is something which goes
beyond all the outward forms and is able
to nourish the spiritual side of his being, not just the soul. We
understand all your criticisms of religion in general and Orthodoxy in
particular, but we invite you to probe more deeply and open yourselves
to perceive the presence of God beneath all the
outward forms in the Orthodox Church."
Much of the book is devoted to describing the process of formation of
the Soviet Church and its separation from the confessing hierarchs who
were either exterminated or went in to the catacombs. Andreyev writes
with the authority and the suffering of heart
of one who was personally involved in these tragic events. Yet at the
same time there is no trace in his writings of that harshness which can
be observed in some present day opponents of the Moscow Patriarchate --
those who have fallen into an error opposite
to that indifference to the truth which is so generally prevalent today.
Professor Andreyev was a man of great learning and a true "aristocrat
of the spirit," whose writings will repay serious study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never Before in English
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Customer Comments:
"Thank you for resurrecting this important work!" USA
"Wow! This is a good read. It opens up the issues in a manner that allows one to see the spiritual side of the question."
Canada
"Amazing!" USA
"A book whose time has come!" Canada
"This book is truly more about discernment." USA
|
|
|
|
Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? by Professor I. M. Andreyev.
A profoundly discerning and timely
work that discusses the deeper spiritual reality behind the catastrophic
events of the Russian Revolution that still imposes its influence on
the Russian Orthodox
Church today. Also contains the essay by Professor Andreyev, "Notes on
the Catacomb Church." These two essays give a deeper, spiritual
perspective to any historical understanding of contemporary issues
concerning the Russian Orthodox Church. It also introduces
the English reader to the important understanding of "things of the
soul" as different from "things of the spirit." This understanding goes
far beyond the title of this work and serves as a fundamental benchmark
to which all "religious phenomena and movements"
are to be examined by today's believers.Professor Andreyev was a
confessor of the true Faith, sentenced to Solovki prison camp and a
Catacomb Christian, who was present with the Petrograd delegation that
went before Metropolitan Sergius to beg him to denounce
his collaboration with the Soviet State. His is a voice that speaks
without harshness, but with an unshakable integrity borne out of first
hand experience and a deep piety.
To view the introduction follow this link
Price is $10.00 US
International orders inquire for pricing
Softcover. 98 pages, illustrated.
|
Home | About Us |
Publications |
Articles |
|
|
|
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