www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News MP's REACTION TO PATRIARCHS LUBOMIR's AND FILARET's meeting

Actually, during this time, right after the "Patriotic Epistle", the ROC entered the greatest period of persecution (late 20's through the 1930's) along with the rest of the USSR. So, this did not have any effect on Stalin's "tolerance". Actually more Churches were closed during this period of time (including the demolition of Christ the Saviour Cathedral in the early 1930's and also see the activities of the League of the Godless etc) So, Metropolitan Sergei's actions did not really ease persecution of the CHurch during the early period of Stalinism. It was only when Stalin needed the Church to rally the nation during WW II, that he eased this and allowed the Church a bit more leeway (the restoration of the Patriarchate, the reopening of many Churches) and indeed this carried over into the post-war period until Khrushchev's renewed persecution in the early 1960's when the ROC leadership were denying that anything was going on and when brave bishops who opposed this policy were being exiled.

I might be confusing two encyclicals. I am referring to the Patriotic Encyclical where Pat. Sergius calls on the faithful to fight in World War II in 1941 or so, the result of which was Stalin inviting Pat Sergius to his residence and opening up more churches (c.f. "Millenium of Faith", SVS press).

anastasios

yes, Anastasios. You are right about this period. But Metropolitan Sergei's epistle where he wrote about the Soviet Regime "their victories are our victories, their sorrows are our sorrows" was written in late 20's and this had really no effect on the persecution during early Stalinism. This is the period of time which ROCOR points to as their basis for having opposed the MP

You hit the nail on the head. I would also add Father Nikolai Eshliman who co-authored the "Open Letter" of 1965 with Father Gleb Yakunin. The very tragic treatment of Father Gleb Yakunin is only one example of how those with genuine concern for the conditions of their faithful, freedom of conscience and protest against the treatment of other Christian groups were destroyed not by the Soviet regime but primarily by the MP acting for the regime. We will likely never know the truth about the full complicity of the MP with other heroes and martyrs such as Fr. Alexander Men.

As Bishop Kallistos Ware brilliantly observed in the Orthodox Way , the fate of the Greek Catholics after WWII represents the darkest chapter in the story of the MP's collusion with the Soviet regime.

As Greek Catholics, while we are sinners, we do not need to rationalize collusion with godless authorities throughout an entire era of our church, during which our church was completely illegal according to that godless regime, and which produced millions of martyrs from which we have emerged stronger, more united, and purified by the flames of martyrdom.

And in response to the previous post offering thanks for the Machiavellian collusion of the MP with the Soviet regime I offer more profound words than my own from the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his 'Lenten Letter' to Patriarch Pimen of Moscow in the 1970s:

Wow! Since the fall of communism, with a gun no longer at his head, Alexy II still shows zero inclination toward honesty, let alone remorse, about the MP's dealings with the Greek Catholic church. He thus seems to continue to wallow in the evil done in the past.

Patriarch Alexei has shown only a love of his 'Church'. Whilst he has worked towards a renaissance of the Patriarchate, he has shown a total disdain for any Russian Orthodoxy outside his reign of power. It is clear that the Moscow Patriarchate has connived in the rutheless persecution of Trur Orthodox Christians and has been linked to violence, assault and possibly even the murder of dissident priests, such as Fr Alexander Zharkov who, having refused to surrender his private chapel to the 'official Orthodox' was found mudered. I think it was in the 1990's that two catacomb bishops vanished, at the very time Patriarch Alexei was becoming a respectable character with growing power and influence. The actions taken against the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church are clearly lead by the state 'Church'.

Agent Drozdov is a dangerous man and should be treated as such.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Well really, but with all due apologies to everyone, who gives you the right to demonise the Patriarch? State Church, using government apparatus to persecute enemies - what total rubbish! It is the same with the Old Calenderist in Bulgaria who accused "the fearsone Bulgarian Secret Service" from dressing as monks and executing "rebel" priests. Total rubbish, utter fabrications. "Innocelty" and his people are schismatics who are seeking to rend the Church apart and the less said about Bishop Photius, the better...

Anton

Dear Friends,

I think that Anastasios' point on Stalin is well-intended, but a bit weak since Stalin, at the end of World War II, was simply promising the world, including the Church, to the Russian people in his desperate attempt to fight Hitler - his former ally.

But Anastasios is right, I believe, to affirm that the Church in Russia could do little else but try as it might to survive.

And if we Ukies are going to attack the Moscow Patriarch for his KGB connections, we should remember that the UOC-KPatriarch Filaret doubtless would have had similar ones, given his former high rank within the ROC.

And Orthodoxy, as well as Roman Catholicism, should really address, in some way, the modern issue of autocephaly for Churches that are organized around specific national-cultural identities.

Rather than attack that as "nationalism" - and doubtless there is plenty of that surrounding the issue - the point is how to find acceptable church structures that respect the cultural identities of the Churches that exist in separate nation-states today.

Just as the Church has always historically reflected civil society, so too does it today.

Under Serbian control, the MOC was truly under the Serbian Patriarch.

With the end of Yugoslavia as we've known it, Macedonians simply saw continuing links with the Serbian Patriarchate as part of a former imperial link that was no longer tenable or desirable.

The same is true in Ukraine and the Baltics.

But one issue that has arisen here and that has yet to be treated systematically is that of "canonicity" in Orthodoxy with respect to new Patriarchates.

Historically, the minor Patriarchates of Orthodoxy arose by self-acclamation, followed by a period of non-recognition by the major Patriarchates until such canonical recognition came.

And Moscow was also on the outs with Orthodoxy for a number of its own actions, yet that didn't affect its canonical status within Orthodoxy.

So what has changed with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and others? Is there a new Orthodox ecclesiology whose recent development we were not made aware of?

Can a history of imperial domination by both Church and State, as in the case of Russia, create canonical precedent and regulation?

Do Churches that have been dominated by imperial powers and Churches need permission from said imperial Churches to reestablish what was their right prior to the period of domination?

And what about the MP's continuing view of the "Sobor of 1946?"

Is it not scandalous to think that a Church can, at one and the same time, claim innocence in the destruction of the Eastern Catholic Church in Eastern Europe due to its being under the control of the Red Army and NKVD - while now maintaining that the actions of 1946 were "perfectly canonical?"

Is canonicity being manipulated for imperial, geopolitical goals here?

Ultimately, we should also remember that our Lord Himself praised the standing up for what is right, even though it meant excommunication (the last Beatitude).

So evidently our Lord did not put too much store in canonicity if it went counter to Gospel values.

Alex

XB!

Blagoslovi, Otets Diakon!

I agree with you entirely about Agent Drozdov!


Anton - Agent Drozdov's words speak louder than his actions, I'm afraid. btw, are you still in London? We should meet up sometime.

Dear Edward,

So you aren't going to apply for a position with a diplomatic corps . . .

Alex

I think that there is some truth to what Michael has written. It's acknowledged that "unia", if you want to all it that -- let's use that at least to describe the process of the past, not the present situation -- is not a process that is favored because it ultimately is not succesful in bringing about union in the wider church. But one often does hear from some Catholics that the only way that unity will happen is one brick at a time -- in other words, that the only way that unity will happen is one Orthodox Church at a time, which echoes statements one has heard from time to time from various Vatican officials that there is no Orthodox Church, only Orthodox churches.

I don't know if such a situation would result in the level of internal dissension within Orthodoxy that followed the Council of Florence. It seems that in this secular age, we may very well see many Orthodox simply follow their hierarchs. As for the monks, I suppose a lot would depend on what the unity council/agreement says.... it is in any case difficult to say what would happen. However, if one church were to do that without the consent of the others, then I think you would see a setback in overall unity discussions and accusations of a revival of uniatism.

So, I think that the only way forward is to try to avoid conducting multilateral dialogues with our churches and instead opt in favor of the bilateral dialogue as has been established -- and I suspect that this realization may have informed the rejection by the Vatican of the MOC.

Brendan

Anton, with due respect, we need to recognise the patriarchate's legacy against dissident Orthodox. It starts with the attempted extermination of the Old Believers under Patriarch Nikon, of thrice-sorry memory, and continues with the very real unholy symphomia between the state 'Church' and the security services in the present Russian federation.

Ask True Orthodox Christians in Russia about their treatment. Don't whitewash very real facts. The Moscow Patriarchate has continued the policy of the false-patriarch Sergei. When stalin offered to free the imprisoned bishops to 'elect' him he said no, because they had already broken communion and condemned him. Patriarch Pimen was content to deny the existence of underground Orthodoxy, but the present incumbent of the Patriarchal thone has tries to deny the 'other' Orthodox even legal status through the new religious laws. The security forces have been a little too open in saying who has brought juridical complaints against dissident Orthodox communities, instigating denials of registration, subsequent confiscations of property and the freezing of financial assets. This is is not fanatical raging but openly recognised facts in the spiritual landscape of the 'New Russia'. We need to face the future with honesty and candor, and we need to start to recognise the present climate before the Soviet years can be put behind us and the healing progress begin.

I do not seek to demonise anyone - I have enough sin on my own conscience and dread my own judgement.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Brendan,

I believe the EP also refused to enter into communion with some Portuguese and Spanish Catholics some years back - as the Vatican asked it to reject their overtures.

Ultimately, one can carry this argument perhaps a little too far.

If RC and Orthodoxy carry on bilateral talks and, in the meantime, refuse to accept people coming over from this Church or that . . . well, for one thing, people like you who wished to become Orthodox, wouldn't be able to - and vice-versa.

An Orthodox priest I once consulted with, and I've spoken with you about this before, after hearing me out bluntly told me to remain where I was within the UGCC.

I think his statement was a good spot of pastoral counsel overall.

I like to think that when Orthodox come to RC priests with their doubts that RC priests could, instead of using that as an opportunity to "poach," see it as an opportunity to help those same Orthodox with their doubts within the context of loyalty to Orthodoxy.

As you know, I've had the opportunity to engage in some of that myself.

My friend who is now a new OCA priest introduced me to his bishop as the one "who brought me to Orthodoxy."

I didn't know what to say to that. And neither did the Bishop! (I think he saw the papal flags in my eyes . . .)

(A very nice Bishop - you'd really like him if you haven't yet met him!)

Alex

Alex --

Yes, I think that the idea would be to avoid ecclesial poaching -- ie, the reception of entire dioceses or local churches. The process of individuals who wish to move from one church to the other, I think, would have to be continued as a matter of respect for the freedom of conscience of indidual persons. I'm not aware of too many Catholic priests engaging in "poaching" of Orthodox here in North America (I'm not sure of what it is like overseas). I don't think the level of our North American Orthodox "evangelism", if you want to call it that, rises to the level of anything approaching poaching, but I may be wrong in certain cases. In my experience, Orthodoxy has the door open if you want to knock on it (well, sometimes we don't even do as well as we should there, if we want to be honest with ourselves!), but doesn't do a whole lot to actively entice people to knock on the door.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

O.K., Counsellor, you is right about the individual rights thingy!

As for Orthodoxy, I do think that the Orthodox liturgy is, in and of itself, the best "missionary" as I know you'd agree.

When I attended my friend's ordination Liturgy (the lucky so and so ), the way the Liturgy was celebrated really mesmerised me (no, it wasn't the way the bishop looked at me).

You people really take your time with the Liturgy and you let it "take hold" of you, allowing it to take you where God wants to take you - the image of St Philip and the Eunuch immediately springs to mind.

And the deep piety of the people is certainly something that makes a great and lasting impression.

I lived near that parish church for about 13 years and always wondered what went on inside.

A very full experience of the Kingdom of Heaven and the worship of God, so it would seem . . .

Alex