№ 4 - March/Март
Оглавление - Contents
1. Почему такая тяга к объединению – Д-р Евгений Магеровский
2. Что произошло бы в случае унии с МП – Г.М. Солдатов
3. What would happen in the case of unification with the MP?
4. A letter from Jerusalem, monastics speak out... M. Agapia
5. Letter of Archimandrite Alexis to Metropolitan Laurus and all faithfull…
6. Aditional information to the letter of Rev. Arhimandrite Alexis. G.M. Soldatow
7. Что должен знать православный христианин (Прав. Русь 1935) продолжение
8. Когда Бог хочет наказать, он отнимает разум..! Д-р Евгений Магеровский
9. Нам говорят о том, что коммунистической власти на Родине нет.. Г.М. Солдатов
10. They tell us there is no more communist government in our Homeland. We beg to differ.
* * *
Почему такая тяга к объединению?
Д-р Евгений Магеровский
Один из моих корреспондентов недавно задал мне очень интересный вопрос, как это произошло, что за четыре года столь изменилась основная ориентация нашего Синода, от неприятия Московской Патриархии до чуть ли не слияния с ней. Я походя раздумывал над этим сам, но недостаточно привёл мои воззрения в какую-то систему, чтобы об этом можно было писать. Теперь же обстоятельства сами понуждают меня этим вопросом заняться.
Как всегда, мне кажется, что тут действует целый набор обстоятельств. Главное, конечно, это - перемена поколений, в особенности среди епископата. Старшее наше поколение, к которому принадлежали все наши основные епископы от владыки Антония (Храповицкого) до влад. Анастасия, были выпускниками Императорских Духовных Академий и ушли в эмиграцию твёрдо понимая, что представляет собой богоборческая коммунистическая власть.
Но и у них были периодические колебания касательно Церкви в советской России, например, признавать ли «большевицкого» митрополита Сергия (Страгородского) главой Церкви или нет, также как и они, выпускника Духовной Академии императорского времени. Как подмечает, но не правильно интерпретирует о. Лебедев, влад. Виталий (Максимович) даже величал митр. Сергия «патриархом», несмотря на его сталинскую «интронизацию». Так что даже они не были в этом едины или постоянны. Постоянность суждений пришла позже, в 1960-х гг., когда её крепко установил о. Георгий Граббе (в будущем, владыка Григорий), но даже тогда никто не говорил о Церкви заграницей, как о чём-то отдельном от абстрактной Русской Церкви-Матери, на статус которой претендовала и теперь претендует Московская Патриархия.
Епископы, идущие за ними, уже такой церковной академической подготовки не имели. Митрополиты Филарет и Виталий вообще не имели никакой серьёзной академической подготовки. Мне кажется, что все трое, включая теперешнего митр. Лавра, были почти что пожизненными монахами, преуспевшими в своём монашестве, но ничем другим до своего избрания в митрополиты не занимавшиеся. Можно сказать, что их кругозор, поэтому, должен был быть значительно уже. Но, тем не менее, надо сказать, что исполняли они свои предстоятельские функции совершенно адекватно. Видимо, закал, данный им в прошлом, был ещё силён.
Нынешние же епископы- все без высшего церковного образования. У некоторых можно встретить степень светского магистра, но далеко не у многих. Говорят, что еп. Пётр Чикагский кончил экстерном сербскую духовную академию, но что собою представляют духовные академии «титовской», т.е. коммунистической, Югославии или даже теперешней Московской Патриархии, мне неизвестно. Переменился и состав епископов. Если раньше это были люди как-то относящиеся к старой России, будь это только одним своим там рождением, теперь это, большей частью, в какой-то степени, иностранцы.
Примером тут могут послужить три сравнительно молодых высших священнослужителя, епископы Гавриил и Илларион, и архиепископ Марк. Первый - от русских родителей, вырос в Австралии, а второй, по-моему, от смешанного брака, родился в Канаде. Третий, архиеп. Марк Германский - выкрест из немцев, никакого прямого отношения к России не имевший.
Интересны также и их воззрения. Поборником традиционной «эмигрантской» позиции в отношениях с Московской Патриархией является влад. Гавриил, воспитанный своей крепкой эмигрантской семьёй в старо-русском духе. Видимо, не имевший такой семейной закваски, влад. Илларион, говорят, занял «непредрешенческую» позицию, а архиеп. Марк - один из самых ярых «толкачей» евхаристического общения и даже унии с Московской Патриархией. По-моему, эти факты не только всё ясно говорят, но и наглядно объясняют.
Поскольку Архиерейский Синод решает все главные дела в РПЦЗ и все почины исходят от него, то суммируем теперь главные изменения, происшедшие в нём. Мы уже говорили о поневоле пониженном образовательном цензе. Мы также говорили о двойственной смене поколений. Его члены и по возрасту младше, и не имеют той национально-религиозной «закваски», которая была у их предшественников. И, думается, главное, в их памяти всё постепенно начинает стираться. Они не знают или хорошо не помнят, что их собственно привело заграницу, или думают, как иностранцы, что всё вернулось на свои места. Именно потому, что действие такой медленной «амнезии» проходит у нас всех неравномерно, то мы и разделяемся сейчас на два так яро противостоящих друг другу лагеря. Если мы помним, то мы горим; если мы не помним, то нам абсолютно всё равно.
Это всё сталкивается с нарочито ошибочной позицией Московской Патриархии, которая настаивает на том, что она есть истинная продолжательница Русской Православной Церкви, с которой она - де--нераздельно связана с покон веков. Это «expressis verbis» нигде не говорится, но всё её поведение об этом буквально кричит. О своём же «сталинском» происхождении она, конечно, тоже предпочитает помалкивать. Каменные своды и купола златоглавых храмов и тысячи молящихся, окружающие их - производят соответствующее впечатление даже на неверующего человека. А если он молодой иерей РПЦЗ, родившийся заграницей, который впервые попадает на русскую землю, то можно себе представить, какой пучёк чувств он переживает. Недаром Отцы Церкви нас предостерегают от «соблазна великолепием и красотой». Он может и знать о происхождении МП, но не полностью осознавать его. Я, например, не знаю, как этот вопрос преподаётся в св. Троицкой семинарии и преподаётся ли он вообще.
Это также может являться и другой существенной причиной, почему мысль о соединении нашла отзыв и среди некоторых из низшего духовенства. Мне кажется, что тут некоторая смесь из незнающих или непонимающих и недавно хиротонисанных епископов, «иностранцев»- вроде архиеп. Марка, и тьмы молодых иереев разного толка. Интересно, что среди них очень мало старшего белого духовенства. На такую плодородную почву запали семена, брошенные- без всякого сомнения - Московской Патриархией.
И вот, уже после ухода на покой и смерти епископа Григория (Георгия Граббе), они сумели совратить большинство, или крупное меншинство, членов Синода и даже отчасти митрополита Лавра, но он гораздо осторожнее, чем все эти оголтелые поборники «унии», и пока что говорит только о «дискуссиях» между сторонами. Он также упорно упоминает о «двух отдельных администрациях Церкви», что означает либо продолжение настоящего существования без всяких перемен, либо какое-то полу-независимое положение Церкви, но с обязательным поминанием Московского Патриарха, на что вряд ли многие согласятся.
РПЦЗ, единственная Церковь, ещё хорошо помнящая появление МП, была для неё занозой уже 80 лет, и МП теперь думает, что пришло подходящее время просто взять и поглотить нас, но она не преуспеет, если не откажется от «сергиянства», а «сергиянство» составляет большую часть того фундамента, на котором она держится. Так что если она им поступится, то у неё будут трудности. Вот, примерно всё, что я могу сказать относительно возможных причин, почему это дело было начато.
* * *
ЧТО ПРОИЗОШЛО БЫ В СЛУЧАЕ УНИИ С МП?
Во-первых: признание МП как Матери-Церкви, чем она, не будучи преемницей Всероссийской Православной Церкви, будучи организована коммунистическим правительством, не является. В результате этого РПЦЗ терялась бы Богом дарованная свобода Церкви с подчинением МП, включаясь в процесс апостасии глобального характера.
Во-вторых: измене надежд в то, что на Родину вернется из-за границы, то Православие, которое сохранялось в зарубежной Руси для будущих поколений верующих.
В-третьих: при соединении с МП были бы признаны канонически все патриархи, назначенные преступными властями, начиная от митр. Сергия (Стратогорского) до современного Алексия II, включая все введенные ими церковные изменения и добавления.
В-четвертых: в церковных делах и выборах в патриархи миряне более не участвовали бы, как это было прежде и при выборах Св. Патриарха Тихона, Высшего Церковного Совета и других церковных организаций, что является результатом советских стремлений отделения духовенства от мирян.
В-пятых: потеря влияния на верующих и церковных дел на Родине, где до настоящего времени внимательно прислушивались к свободному голосу РПЦЗ сохранившей свою верность канонам и Учению Православной Церкви также как и верность Исторической России.
В-шестых: Участие верующих за границей в политических действиях иерархов МП находящихся на службе у правительства (сергианство), которое возвращается к практике и идеологии коммунизма.
В-седьмых: в результате переговоров комиссий неясно, какие будут приняты решения административного характера, но результат их будет вероятно следующим: МП сохранит за собой (как она уже сделала прежде с Американской Митрополией) свои заграничные Епархии: в Австрии, Аргентине, Бельгии, Великобритании, Венгрии, Германии, Канаде, СШ, Нидерландах, Франции, Японии и других странах.
Теперь в 41 стране находится 229 приходов МП с 9 подворьями, 6 представительствами и 15 монастырями (включая, захваченные у РПЦЗ в Палестине), 10 часовен и 1 скит. Таким образом, в случае двух церковных администраций Зарубежной Русской Церкви будет вноситься разлад между духовенством и верующими. Административная независимость в зарубежной Руси будет только временной, и постепенно все ведущие должности займут присланные из Москвы духовные и мирские лица.
В-восьмых: соглашение унии с МП было бы предательством в отношении того духовенства и верующих, которые примкнули на Родине к РПЦЗ, организовав отдельные от МП приходы и епархии, подвергла бы их к более жестоким преследованием, чем были прежде.
В-девятых: Многие из новомучеников прославленных РПЦЗ не признаются и не будут признаны МП, так как они отказывались признавать «Декларацию» Митр. Сергия за что пострадали.
Согласно заявлениям руководства МП хиротонии и рукоположения РПЦЗ на «территории МП» не признаются действительными, что ставит духовенство по отношению к местным властям на положение сектантов и раскольников.
Вот только некоторые пункты, которые страшат верующих русского происхождения живущих в различных странах мира, в случае признания МП как Матери-Церкви и унии с ней.
Г.М. Солдатов
* * *
What would happen in the case of unification with the MP?
First of all: Inevitable recognition of the MP as our Mother-Church?, which she, not being the successor of the All-Russian Orthodox Church, is not, inasmuch as she was created by the godless communist government. As a result, ROCOR would lose its God-given freedom, and by becoming subordinate to the MP, would join in the universal apostasy.
Second: We can hardly expect the hope that our Motherland can have restored within it the age-old Orthodoxy which had been preserved so carefully by the Church Abroad for future generations be realized.
Third: Compulsory naturally-occurring canonical acceptance of all the “patriarchs” placed by the atheistic government, beginning with metrop. Sergii (Stratogorsky) to the contemporary Aleksey II, as well as acceptance of his “church” decrees and resolutions.
Fourth: In many church affairs, as in the elections in the MP, lay people would no longer participate as they had in the past (for example, in electing the Holy Patriarchs Germogen and Tikhon, the Supreme Church Council and other Church organizations). A continuation of soviet aspirations to divide the clergy from the laity would take place.
Fifth: Spiritual aid and hope in the restoration of traditional church order would be lost to believers in our Homeland, where up until the present time people have listened attentively to the free voice of the ROCOR, which had retained its loyalty to the Canons and Teachings of the Orthodox Church, as well as to Historical Russia.
Sixth: It would also become inevitable for the faithful outside RF to become participants with the hierarchs of the MP who are in the service of the government (sergianism) which is clearly returning to communist practices and ideology.
Seventh: As a result of the discussions of the commissions, although it is not fully clear what decisions will be made regarding the administrative issues, however, it seems likely the results will probably be as follows: MP will retain (as it has already done previously with OCA) their own foreign dioceses: in Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Great Britain, Hungary, Germany, Canada, USA, the Netherlands, France, Japan and in other countries. Currently 41 countries have 229 parishes of the MP with 9 podvorye (representation church), 6 delegations, and 15 monasteries (including those they had taken away from ROCOR in Palestine), 10 chapels, and 1 skete. Thus, in the case of two church administrations, ROCOR would experience a division between its clergy and laity. It can also be assumed that the administrative independence outside of RF would only be temporary, and eventually all important positions would be filed by clergy and laity sent by the MP.
Eight: Complete betrayal would have taken place in respect to that contingent of the clergy and faithful, who, in our Homeland, have attached themselves to ROCOR, having organized dioceses separate from the MP. As a result of such a betrayal, they would be subjected to more severe reprisals/persecution than formerly. In accordance with declarations by the leadership of the MP, ordinations of Bishops and priests of ROCOR parishes on “MP’s territory” would be considered invalid, which would place the clergy, in respect to the local authorities, in a position similar to that of sectarians and schismatics.
Ninth: Many of the New Martyrs canonized by ROCOR are not accepted and would not be recognized by the MP since they refused to acknowledge the “Declaration” of Metr. Sergey for which they were martyred.
These are only some of the points which frighten the faithful of Russian ancestry living in different countries of the world, in the event of acceptance of MP as our Mother Church and unification with her.
Translated from Russian by Mrs. M.N. Nekludoff
* * *
A letter from Jerusalem, monastics speak out...
Dear in Christ Fr. Alexis,
Your blessing!
Thank you for your observation on Fr. Serge's method of argumentation. My partner here in Bethany, sr. Martha, was becoming quite weary of hearing me mutter "Straw man, straw man" every time I checked out this List on the Internet!
Though living in Jerusalem I manage to keep up contact with a fair number of ROCOR parishioners in the States and I am pained to hear how many are so frustrated by the hasty change in direction our bishops appear to be in the present dealings with the MP.
It is certainly justifiable that at such a significant juncture in the life of the Russian Church all involved, both clergy and laity, be allowed to offer critical commentary on the events now unfolding. As a nun living in the Holy Land I can confirm that a large majority of the ROCOR monastics in our convents and monasteries here are greatly alarmed on how events are moving.
In particular many are puzzled by the speed of the deliberations. In one of the few official documents to come out of the current visit of the ROCOR delegation to Russia we read: "An important role in the resolution of various problems which hinder the restoration of the fullness of communion is reserved for the Committees which were established in December 2003 by the hierarchies of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The Committees, having earlier worked separately, will in the near future commence working jointly."
Would anyone on this list be able to tell me the following: Who sat on the committees of each Church, when, where, and how many times have they met separately since December 2003, and what (general terms will suffice) did they discuss?
That they have in such a quick time separately defined and seemingly come to a satisfactory resolution of issues that have separated and festered within the churches for some eighty years I find outstanding. Perhaps the members of these committees could be persuaded to come to Jerusalem and utilize their superb negotiating skills to bring about peace in the Middle East as well?
Besides being nervous about the undue speed of the process of reconciliation many I know are frustrated by this tactic Fr. Alexis highlights -- of being painted into a corner and labeled an extremist (HOCNA, ROCie, whatever) then in fact they are simply calling for ROCOR to remain faithful to positions that has always held opposite modernist trends in other Orthodox jurisdictions.
It is a position that does not presume to determine who does or does not have grace but keeps its distance from others to serve as a warning bell and a witness to the wrong direction they are taking! It does not presume that any INDIVIDUAL is "better" than others but does argue that its (ROCOR) hierarchs in its statements and official actions remains faithful to the traditional tenets of the Orthodox faith at a time when hierarchs of other jurisdictions take steps away from traditional Orthodoxy. Fr. Seraphim Rose explained this position well when he wrote, "We still believe in the Orthodoxy of most of the basic jurisdictions in America, but view them as being in different stages of falling away from Orthodoxy, and different priests and laymen in each jurisdiction trying more or less hard (or not at all) to remain Orthodox." (p. 38, Letters from Fr. Seraphim) As Bishop Gabriel of Manhattan rightly pointed out in a talk he gave to monastics while on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land last week, "In the 30's and 40's we did have closer relations with other Orthodox jurisdictions. However over! the years THEY changed while we remained the same, faithful to Orthodox tradition."
Indeed it has always been understood that the only validity for that "isolation" which so grieves some on this List is that we (as a Church) remain faithful to Orthodoxy. Again I'm reminded of the words of Fr. Seraphim: "The sad thing is that our Synod has justification for separate existence only if it is zealot and gives an example to the other fallen or falling-away jurisdictions, but to be wishy-washy and just dragging along has no meaning at all. But Christ our God is with us, and Vladyka John has pushed us in the right direction (he told us to keep right on accusing [Patriarch] Athenogoras, even if people didn't like it), and all of our trials are only to strengthen us for the very difficult times ahead. God is with us!" (p. 125)
Now if today some of our ROCOR hierarchs feel comfortable in moving toward position that will soon bring us into increased contact and eucharistic communion with "world Orthodoxy" this must meant that ROCOR's example and faithfulness to Orthodoxy is not necessary anymore and other Orthodox jurisdictions have returned from their forays into modernism and ecumenism.
Is this so? A look at some recent actions by Russian Orthodox jurisdictions currently allied with the MP around the world provides ample evidence that this is not so.
Item: "East and West meet in Westminster" The Times (of London) January 15, 2004
The article states, "A Russian Orthodox service of Great Vespers will be celebrated at the Roman Catholic cathedral in Westminster for the first time in its history on Saturday, in what has been described as a "significant step forward" in relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches...
Bishop Basil of Sergievo, (the MP representative in London) comments, "We have to make a fairly clear distinction between relations between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics in this country and the situation that applies in Russia and parts of Eastern Europe. I would consider the situation to be completely normal here. In other parts of the world relations are trained, but that is a result of local situations."
Item: Nativity 2004 in Vienna "Before the beginning of the Eucharistic canon Cardinal Schoenborn (Catholic Archbishop of Vienna) and Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions, exchanged the kiss of peace". Concluding his welcoming address, Bishop Hilarion congratulated his guest on the Feast and expressed his wish that the almighty God strengthen him in his service to the Catholic Church and to Christian unity. (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/2/27.aspx
Much more could be discussed about Bishop Hilarion, born only in 1966, and faithful disciple of Metropolitan Kyrill, head of Dept of External Relations of the MP. His theological views (decidedly of the Paris School) and his work in the WCC and the European Union can be further investigated by checking out his website, www.orthodoxeurope.org.
What I found most intriguing was in the section of the site dealing with church history - of all the documentation a Russian Orthodox theologian could find on the history of the Russian New Martyrs Bishop Hilarion sees fit to post the works of Andrea Riccardi on the persecution of Christians the USSR after 1917 (http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/13/2.aspx). For those who may not know Andrea Riccardi is the founder and president of the Community of Sant' Egidio, a famous lay Catholic center that, along with other activities, promotes ecumenism. The St. Egidio community holds an Annual Meeting of Prayer for Peace which is attended by Orthodox Christian churchmen. The events that took place at the latest gathering (17th Annual International Meeting of Prayer for Peace organized in Aachen by the Community of St. Egidio Sept 7-9 2003) make past World Council of Churches gatherings look like child's play!
Bishop Hilarion makes no bones about his admiration for the so-called Paris School of theology. In a paper of his "Orthodox Theology on the Threshold the Twenty-Firsts Century" posted on his website we read, "At the time when Russian theological scholarship had been totally crushed in Russia itself, it continued to flourish in the West, among the Russian emigration. It was in exile that the gap between pre-Revolutionary Russian and contemporary Western science was bridged by theologians of the Russian emigration, in the works of representatives of the so-called "Paris school."... The theologians of the Russian emigration fulfilled this task brilliantly. Thanks to their works the Western world encountered an Orthodoxy which until then it had known only from hearsay..." He continues, "I would distinguish five main streams within the theology of the "Paris school,"... The third prepared the ground for the "liturgical revival" in the Orthodox Church and is related to the names of Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann."
Anyone familiar with the works of Fr. Seraphim Rose or Fr. Michael Pomazansky knows that they would take a completely contradictory position to that of the young Bishop Hilarion. Indeed he himself is aware of this opposition when he writes further down, "Nor will I do more than mention the critique of the "Paris school" that can be heard in circles of Orthodox fundamentalists and zealots for the "purity of Orthodoxy" (read ROCOR theologians). With a few rare exceptions, such criticism comes from unqualified persons lacking in theological education."
So much for our brothers in Christ, if only Vladyka John or the humble, clear-thinking Fr. Michael Pomazansky were alive today to refute such effrontery... and that our own ROCOR priests would recall and cherish this legacy!
And the esteemed Bishop Hilarion isn't finished. He concludes his article listing a number of points, among them: "9. The renaissance will take place when Russian theological scholarship leaves the "ghetto" where it has already spent eighty years, when it aches the level of modern Western research."
A question for our bishops -- if we unite with the MP will the voice of the "ghetto" (and by this let us be clear we mean the thinking of such traditional luminaries as Vladykas' Averky and John, Fr. Constantine Zaitsev, Fr. Michael Pomazansky, Ivan Andreyev, etc.) be consigned to the gutter once and for all? This question frames the essence of the question of reconciliation with the MP. Those who refuse to be labeled fanatics or intransigence do recognize that times have changed and indeed there are positive changes in church life in Russia and that discussions can BEGIN with representatives of the MP.
We must ask ourselves however why were we separated in the first place? The relationship between the ROCOR and MP is not a simple legalistic one. It does not suffice for our bishops to tell us that Communism is now over, so must unite. The reason for the ROCOR's separation and isolation was because it believed that it retained the legacy of "Holy Russia", of an Orthodox Church that retained its internal freedom that its brothers in Russia relinquished (by virtue of the stance of Metropolitan Sergius), of an Orthodox faith untainted by the modernism and ecumenism forced upon most of the world's Orthodox jurisdictions most emphatically by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Do we really believe that by forsaking that legacy, by burying underground the issues of Sergianism and ecumenism, by not asking (or in healthier spiritual conditions of all parties involved, demanding) of the tainted hierarchs of the MP a tangible act of repentance for their past actions (instead of the continued justification of Sergianism, see Patriarch’s Alexis' sermon at M. Sergius' grave only a week ago!) we will bring about the resurrection of Holy Russia?
If our bishops can return from Moscow and tell us that yes, this is so, that by relinquishing our independence and internal freedom (which any form of reconciliation will by definition have to do) and by joining together with the MP we will best be able to bring about the continued resurrection of Orthodox church life in Russia, glory be to God! However, based on the very recent actions of the MP here in the Holy Land, based on the continued present statements and more significantly, actions of the hierarchs of the MP as outlined above with regard to the issues of Sergianism and Ecumenism, based on the all too hasty and vague negotiations now taking place between "committees" of the MP and the ROCOR it will take much more to convince that hoped for day of reconciliation and renewal is soon upon us. What ROCOR has to offer is too precious to give up without thoughtful and considered deliberation. As Fr. Constantine Zaitsev wrote, "Within the depth of Russian conscience is the key to the future - to the earthly future. If this is so, then maintaining ourselves in Truth is not only a salvation of our souls in faithfulness to our Church, but also a service to our Homeland. And then the word wait takes on its real sense with a special power. That is not a passive waiting out, but a stubborn firm endurance" (The Spiritual State the Contemporary World and the Russian Church Outside of Russia).
May God grant our hierarchs the wisdom to know when and how far to go long this most critical path of reconciliation.
In Christ,
M. Agapia
* * *
Letter of Archimandrite Alexis to Metropolitan Laurus
and all faithful children of ROCOR(V)
Dear-in-Christ, Archpastors, Fathers and Brethren,
I ask your Archpastoral and pastoral blessings and prayers.
Many of our people have urged me to write this letter as they feel that their voice will not be heard at the All-Diaspora Clergy Conference, held in Nyack next week. At the time of writing the representative appointed to attend the conference from England has not canvassed our views and in general he has very little contact with the two monastic communities and our English-language missions.
I can only define our people, as those who look to Saint Edward Brotherhood for some kind of leadership, the parishioners here and at the Convent of the Annunciation in London, those in the other missions within the English-language deanery, and those who correspond with us, and increasingly so those who contact us by e-mail.
The visit of our ruling hierarch, His Grace Archbishop Mark, to London in October opened up the subject of the possible rapprochement between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. Nowadays people have much freer access to information through internet reports and lists, and so the question in the last few weeks has come very much to the fore.
In these exchanges I have only found one person who seems wholly enthusiastic about developments. Many others have various misgivings and feel disquiet in various ways, and I would like to put these matters before you, so that you are as fully informed of the situation as possible. I shall not be able to do this with any great wisdom or learning, and may have misinterpreted various events or positions, but I ask you to bear with this, that our voice might be heard.
Having mentioned the one person who enthusiastically endorses the idea of a union, I should also say that I have only come across one or two people who believe that any approach to Moscow on the part of our hierarchs is essentially and fundamentally wrong.
In the main this letter reiterates what I have already addressed to Archbishop Mark, and which he has assured me "will certainly help" him "when participating in the conference," although I have expanded several thoughts. As in my letter to the Archbishop, I think it may be useful if I list under various headings some of the things which are troubling people:-
A) Timing. This seems to come highest on everyone's list of worries. They have the impression that we are rushing towards an agreement, and feel strongly that we should be taking time, testing every step as we go. They fear that the union seems likely to be agreed within months, whereas they would feel happier if the time scale extended over several years or even a decade, for reasons that I hope will become clearer in the items below.
B) Fundamental Issues. They feel that the two fundamental issues are the Sergianist past and present of the Patriarchate, and its espousal of Ecumenism, and they hope that these will be wholly renounced and expunged from the life of the Patriarchal Church before we enter into communion with Moscow. From various statements from Moscow spokesmen it seems that rather than renouncing the legacy of Metropolitan Sergius, it is being lauded and he is seen now as something of a hero, whose compromises "saved" the Russian Church. Many have the impression that the present emphasis has been to gloss over these issues and to concentrate on administrative matters pertaining to the status quo after the union.
C) Study of our Past History. It is felt that before we proceed far along the path to any union, a thorough study should be made of the Synod's past position, so that we do not make some kind of unfortunate U-turn on a matter of principle. For instance, when Patriarchs Sergius, Alexis I, Pimen and the present Patriarch were "elected," our Hierarchs issued statements saying that they considered these elections (in that they were not free) out of order. If this is so, do we not have to somehow accept the legitimacy of the present Patriarch, and on what grounds can we do so?
D) Study of the Present State of the Patriarchate: This is also an imperative. It is obviously true that the Soviet state has fallen, but it is by no means clear that the Moscow Patriarchate now operates free of state or government interference. According to many commentators, the present sociopolitical situation in Russia is even more deleterious than it was under the Soviets, and it appears that the Church is deeply involved in many aspects of what seems to be a "Gangster State" in a way that is less excusable than its subservience to the Soviets, which after all was a totalitarian tyranny.
E) Putin. Putin's rule in the present process has also caused widespread disquiet. One appreciates that perhaps he was only a catalyst for contact, and no one has any wish to decry his personal piety or adherence to Orthodoxy, but it does appear that his "zeal" is not always according to knowledge. Soon after meeting our hierarchs, it is reported that he went to Rome and proposed some kind of rapprochement between Rome and Moscow. Further, his interest at the best seemed to be to support the Russian state. This aim might be laudable and something we would all like to contribute to, but it is not the purpose of the Church, which is to save souls. It appears that his impute is itself a continuation of the Sergianist tradition: that the "reunion of the churches" is primarily to serve a socio-political purpose. Interestingly enough in this regard, parishioners from the Patriarchal Cathedral Parish in Ennismore Gardens, London, contacted me, and said that they would rejoice to witness the re-union of the two churches, but also felt some disquiet over the present moves, and that it seemed to them to be politically motivated and something of a "fix." They speak much more boldly of the perceived political motivation behind the present moves from the Moscow point of view, than any I have heard from our side. One, a Russian who spends much of his time in Moscow, when visiting us, declared, "Obviously, Putin wants this, and has leaned on the Patriarch!" Such is their trust in the freedom of the Patriarchal administration.
F) ROCOR in Russia. In the early nineties or thereabouts, our Synod began to offer pastoral care to the faithful in Russia, who in conscience could not remain within the Moscow Patriarchate; we provided them with a hierarchy and pastors. In many ways, in retrospect, it seems that this development was not well nourished and supported, and, as we all know, various schisms not unlike those among the Greek Old Calendarists, have arisen. But there remain people in Russia, a number have contacted us, who are still loyal to the Church Abroad for reasons of conscience. A speedy or improper union with Moscow, would betray their faithfulness and loyalty.
G) Our Sister Churches. Also after the visit of Archbishop Mark to the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina at Fili in the same decade, our Church entered into a special relationship of Sister Church with the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, that of Metropolitan Vlasie in Romania and with Bishop Photii's diocese in Bulgaria. Here people are disquieted that this special relationship is also being betrayed. We have heard nothing of any discussions with the hierarchs of these Sister Churches about a move which will assuredly greatly change our relationship with them. I think it was Khomiakov who characterized one of the greatest evils of the schism of Rome from Orthodoxy in the eleventh century as a lack of brotherly love because they acted unilaterally and without consulting their Sister Churches in the East. It now appears that ROCA is following a similar course with regard to her professed Sister Churches in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria.
H) The Proposed Autonomy. This has given rise to disquiet at various levels. Some see it as a useful temporary arrangement to ease the way to full unity, if such a unity can be achieved in a right way without falsehood and compromise of principles. However, several people have expressed the thought that it seems to be the primary concern of our hierarchs and that it is being promoted only so that they can safeguard their own positions and prerogatives. In Britain, for instance, it would make our situation particularly difficult, and even more so for those of us who are not of Russian extraction and who do not follow Russian liturgical practices. What would be the point of our being under a Bishop in Germany, if it were perfectly right and proper to be in full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate who have two hierarchs in this country, and the first language of whose ruling hierarch here is English? (But more of the British situation later).
J) Global Orthodoxy. Entering into communion with Moscow would put us in unhindered and full communion with "Global Orthodoxy" and with those ecumenist jurisdictions such as Constantinople and Antioch (which, Antioch, is de facto in communion with the Monophysites, and in which, as we heard from one of their priests two weeks ago, they are permitted to offer the Holy Mysteries to Roman Catholics). When he spoke to us in October, His Grace Archbishop Mark expressed the view that each rector could refuse to concelebrate with or offer the Mysteries to clergymen, whose position he found uncertain. But this seems on reflection to be untenable, and puts us in the realm of having to make personal judgments. I remember that when I was sent to England in 1977, I was told by the then Protopresbyter George Grabbe, and I assumed this was with Synodal authority, that I should not concelebrate with any non-ROCA clergy, but was to explain that this was not a reflection on the Orthodoxy of the other jurisdictions but only a pastoral matter. Fr Milenko Zebic of the Serbian Church then wanted to come and concelebrate and I explained what I had been told. He was deeply upset and reported the matter to the Serbian Synod who complained to our Synod, and, as Secretary at that time, Fr George himself wrote rebuking me for following the very course he had enjoined upon me! This was simply one instance, and with regard only to the Serbian Church. What opportunities for misunderstanding would open up if "technically" we were in communion with Global Orthodoxy? It would leave our church in a position not unlike that of a Protestant sect which existed in this country until a generation or so ago when it amalgamated with another similar group. This sect called themselves Congregationalists, because each local congregation decided its own policy measures. The hierarchical nature of our church would dissolve.
K) ROCA's present position lost. It has been put to me that ROCA has been respected for decades - a respect which seems to have lapsed somewhat under the Metropolitanate of Met. Vitaly, when her position often seemed unclear or vacillating, - for her firm traditionalist stance which avoided extremism. This respect was accorded us even by those who were in some ways our enemies, and it appears that it greatly heartened numbers of the faithful in Russia, who dismayed by their own corrupt Church administration, could look to the Synod as a beacon. Presumably it was for this reason that people in Russia looked to the Synod for pastoral care as soon as, with the weakening of the Soviet tyranny, this opportunity was opened up to them. If we are subsumed into the Patriarchate that position will be lost, even the "Autonomy" will mean that our position is compromised beyond repair.
L) Central Ground. Over the years ROCA has also seemed to maintain a perilously difficult central ground, striving to remain faithful to the teachings of the Fathers, but being moderate and accommodating to the weaknesses and difficulties of others. She has thus avoided the extremism and, indeed, the fanaticism of many of the "Old Calendarist" groups and their sectarian spirit, and the laissez-faire attitude of the more "liberal" jurisdictions with regard to the patristic tradition. If she enters precipitously into union with a Moscow Patriarchate which has not set her course aright in this regard, a precious path of moderate traditionalism within the "Orthodox world" will be lost.
M) Glorification’s. Some have raised the question of the glorifications of the New Martyrs and other Saints. The Patriarchate has blocked the glorification of those New Martyrs who opposed Metropolitan Sergius' policy (a witness to their continuing Sergianism?), whereas the Church Abroad glorifies these Saints. Further Moscow seems of late to have canonized a series of saints, about some of whom it does not seem fanatical to have reservations.
N) The situation in Britain. The above points have all been general, but there are a number of points which perhaps pertain only to the situation in Britain. Joining with Moscow, with or without autonomy, would put us in full communion with the Sourozh Diocese, which in many ways is completely different from other eparchies of the Patriarchate. It is to all intents and purposes the creation of the late Metropolitan Antony (Bloom) and thus reflects many of his eccentricities. Its character is essentially Evlogian rather than Moscovite; there is a strong anti-monastic bias among the majority of its clergy and people; feminism in various shades is prominent among its intellectuals and Met. Antony even came close to endorsing the acceptance of women priests; many of the clergy have impediments to ordination (it was often said this was how the Metropolitan held their "loyalty"); it is ecumenist broadly and deeply in a way that the (New Calendarist) Greek Archdiocese in this country is not; and in general it reflects the most "liberal" trends within "Orthodoxy." Most of the Moscow parishes and missions in this country operate on the New Calendar. In one parish, at least, the Holy Mysteries are regularly given to Roman Catholics who "wish to become Orthodox." Even if all other things were equal as regards the Patriarchate as a whole, one would not want to be in full communion with Sourozh. Visiting clergy from Russia (MP) have often told us that they see it as something like the "Living Church".
P) Our People. Because ROCA's presence in this country has been weak for decades - (In Archbishop Nikodem's (+ 1976) declining years, the presence naturally weakened. Immediately after his repose there were several changes of administration. I believe that Bishop Constantine's tenure here did not give people confidence in ROCA, and although Archbishop Mark has done much for the ROCA presence in the eighteen years he has been our ruling hierarch, he has of necessity been an absent landlord, and there has been no spokesman for our church here) - because of this, many of the people who now belong to our church have come to us from other jurisdictions, only with time and effort seeing the purpose of ROCA's position. In our own congregation in Brookwood, a number of the people first joined the Patriarchate including three of our monks. They joined us not because of better opportunities, but because they believed that ROCA's course was true and that of the Patriarchate and of Sourozh off course. They have grave misgivings about any hasty "reconciliation." Furthermore, as a community, we have grown, and have been loyal to ROCA, even though as individuals and as a community we have not always been welcome or supported, even though attempts have been made to destroy us by people (even clergymen) within ROCA, and even though in any one of the "official" jurisdictions we would probably have been helped and supported both financially and morally to a much greater extent. We have done so because, even though this left us within a tiny minority of the Orthodox, among people who did not accept us - (even this week people from the Russian language parish who wanted to make a pilgrimage to our brotherhood tell us that they were forbidden to do so on a Sunday), - among people who do not understand us, we believed ROCA's course to be true and worth suffering for. Perhaps as a result of faint-heartedness we feel now that perhaps that struggle was in vain.
I hope that putting these disquiets before you, does not hurt or offend anyone. I felt it was imperative to write as we feel it is important that these disquiets come to the attention of Your Graces and the other clergymen and of the members of the Conference meeting next week in Nyack.
I ask your holy prayers and blessings, and that you attempt to set hearts at rest.
Your unworthy son in Christ
Jesus, the sinful monk and unworthy priest,
Archimandrite Alexis Saint Edward Brotherhood, Brookwood, England
* * *
Aditional information to the letter of Rev. Arhimandrite Alexis.
St. Edward was the son of king Edgar of England from his first marriage. He succeeded on the throne of his father in 975, but after only 3 years he was assassinated at the age of 15 or 16, under questionable circumstances. It was openly stated that behind his assassination was his stepmother Elfrida, who wished to put on the throne her son Ethelred. The body of the killed young king was buried at the church in Shaftesburry, where he came to be venerated as a saint and martyr.
His relics were lately held in a private museum of archeolog Wilson Cleridge. Since they were considered as miraculous and the young king died before the separation of the Church of Rome from the Universal Church and then Anglican Church from the Catholic Church, both of them wished to obtain into their possession the miraculous relics. When the members of the ROCOR parish turned with their request to Mr. Wilson he made decision to give over the kings relics to them to for veneration in the church. The transfer happened in 1984 when for that purpose delegated by the Synod of ROCOR Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) came to England. The relics were put in a splendorous shrine in church of St. Edward in Brookwood.
The ROCOR Bishop of Richmond and Britain Constantine, requested opinion of other Orthodox clergy serving in England about their opinion about the sainthood of the king Edward. In their expressed to him opinions all agreed that he did not died for religion even that he could be considered as a martyr, and simply he died unjustly in a struggle for the throne.
Bishop Constantine expressed his and other Orthodox clergy of different jurisdictions in England doubts about the sainthood of king Edward. This came to the press and Archbishop of Canterbury requested Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom), Greek Bishops Kallistos and Methodius and Serbian Archpriest Nikolich, who expressed their opinion that the king is a saint. As result of this Archbishop wrote a complain about the matter to the Synod of ROCOR that in 1985 began at their meeting a investigation of Rev. Bishop Constantine (5/18 July, 1985. No. 11/35/4/ 48). Bishop Constantine was removed from his position and favorable Bishop Mark of Berlin and Germany became temporary administrator of the Britain Diocese. (He is still holding this position.)
The matter of relics possession came to the English court and they were transferred for safekeeping in a bank safe. Only in March of 1995 on the day of St. Edward the suit against ROCOR stopped and the holy relics were returned to the church.
His Eminence Bishop Constantine was for a time in Minneapolis and in conversations with him I head his opinion, that the matter of sainthood should have been examined more than it was done and if relics miracles would be certified by the ROCOR Synod then the entire Russian Church would be rejoiced and be able to call the faithful for their veneration. I was able to obtain for publication from his Eminence some copies of his correspondence with Anglican Church and ROCOR Synod about the matter of the relics. As addition I would like to add that Very Rev. Bishop Constantine was not the only Bishop in ROCOR who had doubts about king Edward’s sainthood.
G.M. Soldatow
***
ЧТО ДОЛЖЕН ЗНАТЬ ПРАВОСЛАВНЫЙ ХРИСТИАНИН?
(Начало в № 2-3)
Вопрос 29. Каким образом антихристианство проникнет в среду христиан?
О. Антихристианство в среду христиан проникнет для многих незаметно, оставляя внешнюю форму христианства, а самый дух и сущность христианства заменяя антихристианством.
В. 30. Как это узнать?
О. Христианство требует подвига исповедания и страдания за Христа. Антихристианство или ложное христианство бежит от подвига и путем компромиссов и сделок со своей совестью, стремится сохранить свое внешнее благополучие, т.е. думает следовать за Христом, не неся креста своего, но Христос говорит таким людям грозное слово: «кто не несет креста своего и идет за Мною, не может быть Моим учеником» (Лук.14, 27). При этом несение креста есть не только путь скорбей и страданий, но главным образом есть преданность воле Божией: «Не Моя воля, но Твоя да будет» (Лук. 22, 42). Страдание-же или благополучие не от нас зависят, но от Бога, по слову св. Писания: «без воли Божией и влас с главы вашей не упадет». От нас требуется только преданность воле Божией и готовность на страдания за свое исповедание Христа, как Сына Божия и Спасителя мира.
В. 31. Может-ли Христова Церковь идти на компромиссное соглашение с неверующей гражданской властью, а если не может, то почему?
О. Не может, потому что пользы это не принесет и недостойно истинным последователям Христа, которые, если сознают себя единомышленными и единоверными со святыми мучениками первых трех веков и последующих, то не должны этого делать, но отстаивать свою свободу, как отстаивала древняя Христова Церковь. Ибо такова воля Божия, дабы испытанная вера наша оказалась драгоценнее гибнущего, хотя и огнем испытаемого золота (1 Петр. 1, 7), если вы участвуете в Христовых страданиях, радуйтесь, да и в явлении славы Его возрадуетесь и восторжествуете (1, Петр. 4, 13).
В. 32. Какие-же требования со стороны неверующей гражданской власти предъявлены к Церкви?
О. а) Оправдать ее противные христианству действия, т.е. признать справедливость революции, которая, повторяем, по словарю иностранных слов есть насилие и кем-бы оно ни совершилось, противно учению Христову и духу Его Церкви и Церковью никогда оправдано не будет.
б) Сочувствовать революции и ее идеям; отсюда обвинение в контр-революции всех христиан, которые, по своей христианской совести, не могут сочувствовать ни революции, как таковой, ни ее идеям, не отрекаясь от Христа, хотя-бы внешне.
в) Признать компетентность неверующей власти в делах чисто церковных и признать ее покровительницей Церкви, что не естественно.
В. 33. Что дает гражданская власть за признание правоты ее богоборных действий и сочувствие им?
О. Центральное церковное управление, свободу действий для совращения истинных христиан и благоденственное мирное житие, хотя весьма относительное и призрачное.
В. 34. Есть-ли принявшие такое предложение правительства?
О. К сожалению есть. Таковы живцы-обновленцы (см. деяния собора 1923 г.), ВЦС, лубенцы, самосвяты и разные автокефалисты, которые есть все враги Христовой Церкви и ложные христиане, продавшие, как Исав, свое первородство за чечевичную похлебку (Быт. 25, 31-34).
В. 35. Какая-же цель таких требований, предъявленных со стороны правительства к Церкви?
О. Власть коммунистическая, как сказано выше, есть переходная ступень к антихристианству и самому антихристу, а поэтому ее идеи и требования есть прообраз будущих идей и требований к христианам со стороны антихриста.
В. 36. Какие-же идеи и требования антихриста?
О. Соединение в одном лице власти гражданской и власти духовной и требование признания его со стороны христиан своим единственным покровителем.
Картину таких требований со стороны антихриста к христианам изобразил Владимир Соловьев в своей повести об антихристе (см. три разговора). Антихрист, достигнув политического владычества, как всемирный монарх, соберет Вселенский Собор из представителей всех религий и предложит всем признать его своим единственным главою и покровителем, при чем главное внимание обратит на христиан всех ориентаций, обещая им за это признание все блага земные, а непокорным – страшные репрессии. И все ложные христиане, для которых земное благополучие дороже спасения своей души, прельщаемые антихристом, поспешат перейти на его сторону и признать его не только политическим, но и духовным своим владыкой и богом. Не тоже-ли мы видим и в настоящее время, когда власть гражданская, как самая справедливая в мире, признана всеми отщепенцами, которые не жалеют никаких рабски-льстивых похвал для нее за дарованную им свободу (см. деяния Лже-собора 1923-25 г.г. и все раскольнические журналы), считая безбожную власть своей покровительницей.
В. 37. На каких условиях Церковь и коммунизм могли-бы рядом существовать, ведя идейную борьбу между собой и в тоже время, не стесняя человеческой свободы?
О. На тех-же самых условиях, какие существуют в мире духовном между ангелами и духами злобы. И те, и другие, имея объектом своего влияния душу человека, не стесняют, однако, его свободы, от самого человека зависит послушать совета ангела или совета демона. Или, как, например, в мире физическом: церковный колокол призывает христианина в храм Божий на молитву, а театр посредством афиш и плакатов зовет его-же на веселое представление. Причем ни церковный колокол, ни театр не стесняют человеческой свободы, и от самого человека зависит послушать призыва того или другого.
(продолжение следует)
* * *
«Когда Бог хочет наказать, Он отнимает разум…»
Помниться, как в добрые старые довоенные времена, некоторые наши эмигрантские шутники расшифровывали название Р.С.Ф.С.Р. Они говорили, что это сочетание букв означает «Редкий Случай Феноменального Сумасшествия России». В общем, если бы не миллионы жертв этого повального «сумасшествия», то можно было бы его таковым и считать. Но, к сожалению, эти жертвы были. И до сих пор они безмолвно взывают об отпущении своих душ к Всевышнему. О них сейчас принято не говорить, а если о них и упоминают, то только вскользь, быстро переходя на более «нейтральную» тему. Видимо, глупость такого «страусового» подхода к своему прошлому, не знает границ.
Например, нам недавно сообщили о том, что город Москва приняла очередной проэкт своего нового городского знамени. Как Вы думаете, что на нём? Ну, Вы скажете, Георгий Победоносец… А что там ещё может быть другого? Вот, прочтите…
Согласно документу, на лицевой стороне тёмно-красного полотнища будет изображён герб города, основным элементом которого является образ Георгия Победоносца, восседающего на коне и поражающего копьём змея. В центре оборотной стороны полотнища будет помещён золотой круглый медальон с изображением профиля основателя Москвы - Юрия Долгорукого. Медальон обрамлён надписями «Приди ко мне, брате, в Москов» и «Князь Юрий Долгорукий».
Кроме медальона оборотная сторона полотнища будет украшена изображениями архитектурно-мемориальных символов столицы: Кремля, собора Василия Блаженного, храма Христа Спасителя и (советского!) здания Московского государственного университета на Воробьёвых горах. К знамени будут прикреплены ленты с вышитыми цветными изображениями государственных наград, которых был удостоен город, - двух орденов Ленина, медали «Золотая звезда» и ордена Октябрьской революции.
Служба коммуникации ОВЦС Московской Патриархии, 16 ноября 2004 г.
Хочется спросить у господ составителей этого проекта, или как их там теперь звать в эти пост-советские времена, вы, что, совсем рехнулись? Вы, что, не сознаёте, что эта октябрьская революция и все её последствия унесли около ста миллионов жизней ваших предков? Ведь нет на территории бывшей России семьи, которая бы кого-то не потеряла из-за этой «революции»! Сколько людей погибло в Гражданскую войну? Сколько умерло с голоду в 1920-х и 30-х гг.? Сколько погибло в различных «чистках»? Сколько погибло в Большом Терроре конца 30-х гг.? Сколько, наконец, село на продолжительные сроки в ГУЛАГ за всё время существования советского режима? Это всё произошло из-за этой «революции». И, теперь, её символику, вместе с профилем этого изувера, основоположника всех бед России, вы будете цеплять на ваше знамя? Вы, что, заболели расстройством рассудка?
И с церковью этого государства нам теперь предлагают объединяться? Невольно хочется также спросить у всех упорствующих в удержании и сохранении такого «своего славного прошлого» - Неужели вы хотите, чтобы все «цивилизованные» нации мира продолжали смотреть на вас, как на «самку, пожравшую своих детёнышей»? Ведь это может вам выскочить в самую неблагополучную для вас и непредвиденную минуту, когда вы уже будете накрепко уверены в том, что вам удалось скрыть и предать забвению эти миллионы жертв коммунизма. Но тогда вам будет ещё труднее с ними разделаться, чем теперь. Опомнитесь!
* * *
Нам говорят о том, что коммунистической власти на Родине больше нет!
Но у нас другое мнение.
Рухнули фашистские режимы в Италии и Германии и население и правительства порвали связь со стыдным для них прошлым. В Германии запрещены законом распространение и продажа нацистских эмблем, плакатов, фотографий, литературы, песен и т.д. В магазинах не продаются музыкальные записи, и молодежь не слышит и не поет песни “Гитлеровской молодежи”. Улицы, носившие имена Гитлера и других преступников переименованы, и памятники удалены, а в школах на уроках истории прошлое представляется ученикам как черное пятно на немецком народе.
Также и в Австрии нет ни районов, ни городов или улиц Гитлера, Айхмана, Кальтенбруннера, Глобокника, Новака или других нацистов австрийского происхождения.
Но в РФ, где говорят, что коммунизм больше не правит государством, положение обстоит иначе. Правительство не желает порвать с прошлым. По какой то непонятной нам причине назвавшись иными именами, новые правители тщательно хранят прошлое Советского Союза: памятники палачам продолжают стоять на прежних местах, мавзолей стоит на Красной площади, города носят имена советских преступников, в музеях сохраняют память о них.
На заменах звезды, а знамя Москвы будет не только со Св. Георгием, но с ним будут красоваться ленты орденов Ленина, золотой звезды и октябрьской революции и в стране будут отмечаться коммунистические праздники. Правительство РФ с новыми словами вернуло сталинский гимн и красный флаг.
По случаю годовщины основания страшной ЧК выпущена серия из 6 почтовых марок РФ с портретами преступников этой ужасной организации уничтожившей сотни тысяч лучших русских людей: духовенство, представителей интеллигенции, военных и других.
Под влиянием такой пропаганды советского прошлого, слыша о бывшем величии СССР в обороне страны, науке и космических полетов молодежь сочувствует коммунизму. Фирма «Мелодия» распространяет в РФ диски с пионерскими песнями содержащие: «Ленинская правда», «Здравствуй, Морозов», «Пионерская дружба» и другие советские песни восхваляющие коммунистическую партию. Молодежь распевает эти песни, прославляя советский строй правления, пионеров и комсомол.
МП не реагирует на происходящее возвращение к коммунизму в стране и не протестует против государственной поддержки сохранения советского влияния на народ и даже в семинариях и духовных Академиях по-прежнему в читальных залах разложены такие газеты как «Комсомольская правда» и другие издания запятнавшие себя ложью. Заняв такое положение по отношению к продолжающемуся положению в стране руководство МП, в прошлом лгавшее всему миру более 70 лет, утверждая, что в СССР нет гонений на Церковь, остается по-прежнему на службе государства, но не Бога, ставя свои сергианские навыки выше, чем пользу Церкви и верующим.
Захватив власть, коммунисты всячески старались стереть даже память прошлого России, разрушая ее духовные и культурные ценности. Теперь прежние коммунисты, назвавшись другими именами, для «показухи» о свободе религии в РФ разрешили восстановить некоторые монастыри и церкви, но сами остались врагами Православной Церкви и русских национальных ценностей. Об этом говорят не только жители на Родине, но и даже иностранная пресса. Вот что сообщил своим читателям американский журнал в Миннеаполисе штат Миннесота “Parade” от 30 мая 2004 г. стр. 18.:
«За прошедшее десятилетие, более 400 исторических зданий в русской
столице былисравнены с землей, включая 60 которые по закону были
защищены от уничтожения. Некоторые из них построены в 1600 гг. Почему
они были уничтожены? Члены охраны старины обвиняют Юрия
Лужкова, мэра Москвы последних 12 лет. Они указывают на большие доходы
от строительства, плюс жадность и коррупцию в правительстве. Жене мэра
принадлежат 11% в строительной компании за постройки в Москве. Никогда
со времени Иосифа Сталина в 1930 г. не уничтожались целые части города
с потерей такого количества исторических построек, для строительных
проектов. Жители попробовали протестовать, но ничего не достигли…»
Из всего перечисленного выше мы не видим больших изменений в стране и не можем представить себе как возможно даже думать Зарубежной Руси об унии с МП или сотрудничестве с правительством РФ до тех пор, пока оно не откажется от пагубного для Родины прошлого и не займется охраной российских духовных и культурных ценностей.
Г.М. Солдатов
* * *
They tell us there is no more communist government in our Homeland.
We beg to differ.
Fascist regimes have crashed in Germany and Italy. The populations of these countries and their representative governments have broken all ties with their shameful past. In Germany, for instance, it is forbidden by law to disseminate and sell Nazi emblems, posters, photos, literature, songs, etc. Stores do not sell musical recordings, and the youth dos not hear, nor does it sing songs of the “Hitler Youth”. Streets, formerly bearing names of Hitler and other Nazi criminals have been renamed, their monuments have been removed. In schools during history lessons, their country’s past is portrayed as a black shameful stain on the German people. Also in Austria, there are neither city quarters, nor cities or towns or streets bearing names of Hitler, Eichman, Kaltenbrunner, Globocnik, Nowak or other Nazis of Austrian descent.
But in the RF, where they say that Communism no longer leads the government, the landscape differs dramatically. The government does not wish to break with its dark past. For some unfathomable reason, having named themselves something different, the new leaders carefully preserve the past of the Soviet Union: many monuments to the executioners continue to stand on their former pedestals, the mausoleum, as before, stands on Red Square, a whole list of cities has retained names of soviet hangmen-criminals and museums carefully guard their memory. The flags still carry stars/pentagrams. The flag of Moscow will not only portray St. George but next to him will appear the ribbons of the Lenin medal and the October Revolution, as well as medals of the “Gold Star”. The country will celebrate Communist holidays. Stalin’s hymn has been returned albeit with new words, as has been the red flag. To commemorate the anniversary of the establishment of the frightful CHEKA, as series of 6 postage stamps has been issued in the RF bearing portraits of the criminals most notorious within this horrible organization which destroyed hundreds of thousands of the best of Russians – clergy, members of the intelligentsia, military and other so-called “enemies”. Under the influence of such propaganda concerning the soviet past, hearing of the greatness of the USSR in its military defense, the sciences, and space travel, it is no wonder the country’s youth sympathizes with Communism. The company “Melodia” distributes throughout the RF disks with pioneer songs containing “Lenin’s Truth”, “Hello Morozov”, “Pioneer Friendship” and other Soviet songs, applauding the Communist party. Young people sing these songs glorifying the Soviet system of government, pioneers and Komsomol.
MP does not react to the return to Communism occurring in the country and it does not protest against the government support to retain the Soviet influence on the people. Even in the seminaries and theological Academies, as in the past, reading rooms display such newspapers as “The Komsomol Pravda” and other publications which had soiled themselves with lies. Taking up such a position to the continuation of such conditions in the country, leadership of the MP, having lied to the entire world for over 70 years by insisting that in the USSR there is no persecution of the Church, remains as formerly, steadfast in its service of the government, not God, placing its sergianistic habits above the Church’s teachings and above the spiritual needs of the faithful. Having usurped the power in the land, the Communists used all means at their disposal in attempts to erase the memory of Russia’s past, thereby systematically destroying her spiritual and cultural treasures. The former Communists now call themselves other things, and in order to show off religious freedom in the RF, have allowed some rebuilding of monasteries and churches, remaining all the while themselves enemies of the Orthodox Church and of Russian nationalistic treasures. Not only have inhabitants of our Homeland spoken of this, but even the foreign press. Here is what the American magazine “Parade”, from Minneapolis, MN stated in its May 30, 2004 issue on p.18:
Moscow Meets The Bulldozers.
In the last decade, more than 400 historic buildings in Russia’s capital have been leveled, including 60 that were protected by law from demolition. Some dated from the 1600s. Why are they coming down? Preservationists blame Yuri Luzhkov, Moscow’s mayor for the last 12 years. They cite the lure of high construction profits, plus greed and corruption in the government: The mayor’s wife owns a construction company with 11% of the contracts to build in Moscow. Not since Josef Stalin tore down large sections of the city for a rebuilding project in the 1930s have so many historic sites been lost. Residents have staged protests, but to no avail. And Luzhkov recently was re-elected.
The above mentioned is by far not everything. This is only a portion of that which the government of the RF is trying so carefully to safe keep in the memory of its people, of how “to the foundations” the old was destroyed, and then in its place “we will build our new world..”
And so they built it, initially a tragedy for Russia!
And so, from the above we do not see many changes in the country, and cannot imagine how it could be possible to even contemplate a unification of ROCOR with the MP or to collaborate with the government of the RF until such time as it renounces its ruinous for the Motherland past and begins to guard and protect Russian spiritual and cultural values.
Translated from Russian by Mrs. M.N. Nekludoffff
==============================================================================
ВЕРНОСТЬ (FIDELITY) Церковно-общественное издание
“Общества Ревнителей Памяти Блаженнейшего Митрополита Антония (Храповицкого)”.
Председатель “Общества” и главный редактор: проф. Г.М. Солдатов.
President of The Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) Memorial Society
and Editor in-Chief: Prof. G.M. Soldatow
При перепечатке ссылка на “Верность” ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНА © FIDELITY
Пожалуйста, присылайте ваши материалы. Не принятые к печати материалы не возвращаются. Нам необходимо найти людей желающих делать для Верности переводы с русского на английский язык. Мнения авторов не обязательно выражают мнение редакции. Редакция оставляет за собой право редактировать, сокращать публикуемые материалы.
Мы нуждаемся в вашей духовной и финансовой поддержке.
===============================================================================
Сайт на интернете Общества Ревнителей Памяти Блаженнейшего Митрополита Антония:
http://metanthonymemorial.org/
Сноситься с редакцией можно по е-почте: GeorgeSoldatow@Yahoo.com или:
The Metropolitan Anthony Society, 3217-32nd Ave. NE, St. Anthony Village, MN 55418, USA
=============================================================================================================================