ВЕРНОСТЬ - FIDELITY № 40 - 2006

The Editorial Board is glad to inform our Readers that this issue of “FIDELITY” has articles in English,  Spanish and Russian Languages.

С удовлетворением сообщаем, что в этом номере журнала “ВЕРНОСТЬ” помещены статьи на английском, испанском   и русском языках.

                                    Contents -  Оглавление

1. "THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE PURPORTED UNIFICATION BETWEEN THE ROCOR & MP" DANIEL, BISHOP OF ERIE

2. "MENSAJE DEL OBISPO DANIEL DE ERIE, VICARIO DEL PRESIDENTE DEL SINODO DE OBISPOS AL SERVICIO DE LOSVIEJOS CREYENTES, DIRIGIDO A LOS SACERDOTES, MONJES Y FELIGRESES DE LA IGLESIA ORTODOXA RUSA EN EL EXILIO, EN VISPERAS DEL 4o CONCILIO DE TODO EL EXILIO EN 2006 EN SAN FRANCISCO"

3. "ADDRESS OF BISHOP DANIEL OF ERIE, VICAR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS, SERVICING OLD-RITE BELIEVERS.  To the Clergy, Monastics and Parishioners of The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on the Threshhold of the IV th Pan-abroad Sobor 2006  In San Francisco".

4  "THE PENULTIMATE BETRAYAL."  by Eugenia Richard

5. "О ЦАРСКОЙ РОССИИ - ЯЗЫКОМ ФАКТОВ". Елизавета Ведеева

6. “WHAT IS A MAN PROFITED, IF HE SHALL GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD, AND LOOSE HIS OWN SOUL?"  by Eugenia Richard

7. "ИГНОРИРОВАНИЕ СЕРЬЕЗНЫХ ДУХОВНЫХ ВОПРОСОВ". ПРОТ. ГЕОРГИЙ ПРИМАК

* * *

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD

DANIEL, BISHOP OF ERIE

246 EAST SECOND STREET

ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA 16507

TEL: (814) 452-0845

 THOUGHTS CONCERNING THE PURPORTED

UNIFICATION BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX

CHURCH ABROAD AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

When examining ecclesiastical rules (apostolic, conciliar and the fathers, that is the canonical basis of  legislation of the Orthodox Church), it is not difficult to become convinced that the principal, if not solitary objective of these rules, is the spiritual well-being of the flock. All the rest, for instance, the elevation of individual hierarchs or individual local churches, is relatively insubstantial and must not eclipse the main principle.  Therefore, in deciding issues of church management, one must always consider whether the rendered decision is beneficial for the souls of the flock.  Neglect of this principle has led to such sorrowful phenomena, as the secession of the Roman church from the fullness of Orthodoxy.

It is known that the Orthodox Church consists of a certain number of separate churches, joined by unity of faith, yet independent from each other.  The number of them has never been a subject in the teaching of the faith and could have varied throughout the times. (Rome recognizes only one church – the Roman church to which, in its opinion, everyone must be subjected.)

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, or the Church Abroad, was established completely canonically, on the basis of the decree of Patriarch Tikhon, as a temporary church administration. No one at that time could suppose that its existence would extend over more than eighty years!  The founders of our church had presumed that as soon as the godless, communist regime fell, all the refugees for the sake of whose spiritual needs it had been established, would immediately flock back to Russia, and then there would no longer be any need for the existence of a separate church outside Russia.  But eighty years have passed, and there has been no soviet regime for over ten years, yet our flock did not swarm “back” to Russia because these are no longer the refugees from the soviet regime, who had dreamed of returning home, but their children and even grandchildren. (I personally know of only one (!) case of such a “return”).  Furthermore, many converts to Orthodoxy from other faiths, not of of Russian descent at all, belong to our church, to whom the concept of “returning to Russia” is not applicable at all.  Their number is growing.  It is possible that this is the true mission of our church:  witnessing Orthodoxy to a world of a different faith.

Having once received ecclesiastical independence (“autocephaly” – this word is far too loud, but in essence it is the same thing) our church must concern itself with the spiritual life of its sheep, and not be too preoccupied with the formal claims of other churches.

One could probably not object to improved relations with the Moscow Patriarchate, since it would be beneficial for both sides:  the Church Abroad has many years of experience in being in the free world, without submission to any worldly power, while the Moscow Patriarchate unites the majority of Orthodox in Russia around itself.  Such an improvement in relations could eventually lead to establishing liturgical communion between the two churches, but this would be possible if Moscow completely ceases its encroachment on the independence of the Church Abroad and the desire to absorb it.

Some envision the “reunification” of the Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate in the following manner:  the Church Abroad would relinquish its independence (i.e. autocephaly), which it had enjoyed the last eighty years, and “infuse itself” into the structure of the “mother-church”, albeit even with the most favorable conditions of “automony”, in the capacity of an exarchate, or in some other fashion, yet with unconditional submission to that church and its head, the patriarch. Talk of autonomy may be attractive for poorly informed people, but the essence of the matter does not change.  In other words, in this case the Church Abroad will be expected to “self-abolish” under the cover of flowery words.

Such a “reunification” is completely unacceptable for the Church Abroad. In this case it is impossible to speak of “reunification” since the Church Abroad never belonged to the current Moscow Patriarchate.  The very use of the _expression “mother-church” demonstrates the unsoundness of this view.  Every birth is simoultaneously a separation, since that which is born becomes a separate organism, an entity separate from the birth-giver.  It is connected to it only by birth.  The one born cannot re-enter the womb which delivered it through the same means that it came out of it.  The only way it can re-enter its birthgiver would be not through the womb, but through the stomach, but not one mother would ever devour her own children.

The Church Abroad became independent back in the times of Patriarch Tikhon, without any hostility against the mother-church.  After that, within the Moscow Patriarchate, big changes occurred.  During the initial period the church in Russia was persecuted by the godless soviet regime.  During the Second World War, the church was no longer so heavily persecuted, and after the war Stalin “mercifully” permitted the selection of a patriarch, who metropolitan Sergii (Starogorodskii) was to become, staining himself by active collaboration with the soviet regime.  His successors acted in the same manner, the current patriarch not excluded. They all collaborated with the soviet regime and they owed their promotions to it.  The fall of the soviet regime occurred independently of them, and even if there had been no fall they would have gone on in subservience to the regime, which stained itself with the blood of millions of Russian people and a multitude of hieromartyrs. Yet now the leadership of the Patriarchate behaves itself in such a manner as if nothing extraordinary occurred, and that they represent the very Moscow Patriarchate from which we supposedly fell away.

From its very beginning, the Russian Church was under the Patriarchate of Constantinople and recognized the Patriarch or Constantinople as its head – he appointed the metropolitans who headed the Russian Church.  But in the fifteenth century, the so-called Union of Florence occurred – an attempt to unite with the Roman Catholic church, in which the Patriarch of Constantinople was involved.  The Russian Church could not remain under his power without putting its orthodoxy into danger.  Therefore, because of dire need and without the permission of the mother-church, it became independent, i.e. autocephalous, electing St. Jonah as its metropolitan.  Reconciliation occurred only at the end of the sixteenth century, but the notion of  returning under the rule of Constantinople was out of the question.  With the consent of the eastern patriarchs the metropolitan of Moscow was endowed with the title of patriarch, and the Russian Church became independent once and for all. 

Something similar occurred even now.  In the 1920’s the Russian Church Abroad separated from the church in the homeland, because Russia became enslaved by the godless soviet power, and it is now eighty years since it has been living independently.  It is not obliged to “return” under the rule of the current Moscow Patriarchate.  It lives in different conditions than the church in Russia, and over the course of eighty years it has adjusted to them.  Why should it need to go under submission to Moscow now?  What benefit could this bring to its flock?

One must recognize improved relations with the Moscow Patriarchate as desirable, to the extent that this is possible, but one must  decisively reject a merger with it because this would mean the “self-abolition” of the Church Abroad, which we have no moral right to do.  If our church submits to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, then those of us and our sheep for whom this is unacceptable, would be left without a church, which would contradict the main objective of all church rules, as was mentioned in the beginning.  Therefore it is better for us to remain in the current situation, be it difficult, but the only right thing to do according to the conscience.

If we were to unite with the Moscow Patriarch, then we would have to recognize the American autocephalous church (O.C.A.) with which we have little in common because of their extreme modernism.  Then we would have to be closer with new calendar Greeks, which would push us away from the old calenderists (Greeks and others), who are in communion with us.  The flock of the Church Abroad does not need such a unification.

But it would not bring great benefit for the Moscow Patriarchate either.  In size it surpasses other churches, and has no need to acquire a small number of parishioners from abroad.

By becoming independent from the church in Russia, we have not stopped being Orthodox;  so in the event we join the Patriarchate we will not become Orthodox, for we have never ceased being that.  Therefore this unification holds no benefit for us.

If someone personally does not like the independent status of our church, then these people belong to it through misunderstanding.  No one is holding them back, they can go under Moscow’s authority, or anywhere else they please, but understandably, without the flock and church property.  We have no right to “gift” either our flocks nor the assets of our humble church, acquired with such labour, to the Patriarch.

The Moscow Patriarchate faces an enormous task.  That is the spiritual upbringing of the many million strong Russian people, who have spiritually reverted to the wilderness during the years of soviet rule, when people were deprived of all spiritual education and when in all the schools atheism was forcefully planted.  In this we can only wish them success, but its absorption of the Church Abroad would not bring them any benefit in this matter, and would merely be an unnecessary fancy.

Everything which has been said can be summarized as follows:

Improvement of relations with the Moscow Patriarchate?

“Yes”, to the extent this is possible.

Unification with the Moscow Patriarchate?

Decisively “No”, since this would mean the “self-abolition” of the Church Abroad.

Bishop Daniel

 * * *

MENSAJE DEL OBISPO DANIEL DE ERIE, VICARIO DEL PRESIDENTE DEL SINODO DE OBISPOS AL SERVICIO DE LOSVIEJOS CREYENTES, DIRIGIDO A LOS SACERDOTES, MONJES Y FELIGRESES DE LA IGLESIA ORTODOXA RUSA EN EL EXILIO, EN VISPERAS DEL 4o CONCILIO DE TODO EL EXILIO EN 2006 EN SAN FRANCISCO

Quiero dirigirme a ustedes y compartir con ustedes algunas de mis reflexiones sobre los temas que nos agitan, Reflexiones que fueron escritas hace un ano, pero que no han perdido su validez hasta el tiempo actual.

Queridos en el Senor Obispos, Padres, Hermanos y Hermanas!

En su momento me dirigi a ustedes en relacion a las conversaciones que se estaban llevando a cabo entre nuestra Iglesia del Exilio y el Patriarcado Moscovita. Yo temia que esas tratativas llevaran a la unificacion de nuestras Iglesias bajo el poder del Patriarcado Moscovita y, por ende, a la destruccion total de nuestra independencia, de la cual gozamos desde hace mas de 80 anos.

Me tranquilizaron diciendome que, supuestamente, no se trata de la unificacion de las Iglesias, ni de nuestra sumision a Moscu. sino solamente de mejorar las relaciones entre nuestras Iglesias.

No tengo ningun reparo contra eso y me deje convencer que nada amenazaba la existencia de nuestra  independiente y libre Iglesia.

Luego recibi del Sinodo de Obispos de nuestra Iglesia todo un paquete de documentos sobre estos temas y me tomo un tiempo leerlos y analizarlos.

Por eso considero indispensable dirigirme otra vez a ustedes, ya que los documentos que me han sido enviados sobrepasan en mucho mis peores temores, y es dudoso que yo pueda participar personalmente en el debate en el Concilio sobre estos temas.

Al principio se habla mucho de las relaciones reciprocas entre la Iglesia y el Estado y sobre el ecumenismo desde el punto de vista ortodoxo. Y nosotros solo podemos alegrarnos de ello, ya que en el pasado reciente, - algo asi como ayer en escala historica, - el Patriarcado Moscovita se encontraba en una total e incondicional subordinacion al poder comunista ateo que se habia apoderado de nuestra Patria, y podia integrar cualquier tipo de organizacion por indicacion de ese poder.

Nuestra Iglesia, en cambio, nunca estuvo aliada al gobierno ateo y nunca pertenecio a ninguna organizacion ecumenica. O sea que todo esto no tiene ninguna relacion directa con nuestra Iglesia. Solo podemos tener la esperanza de que el Patriarcado Moscovita no se desvie de estos principios.

Todas las versiones de que que no se supone ninguna unificacion ni subordinacion al Patriarcado Moscovita, estan totalmente privadas de fundamento.

Acerca de invocar a las jerarquias eclesiasticas, -  al principio  no se dice nada, seguramente para no irritar a los feligreses del exilio. Pero luego resulta que la eleccion del Primer Jerarca de la Iglesia del Exilio necesita de la confirmacion del Patriarca y del Concilio de Obispos del Patriarcado Moscovita. Y el nombre del Primer Jerarca va a ser invocado  en segundo lugar despues del nombre del Patriarca, cuando de invocar a este ultimo hasta ahora no se habia hecho ninguna mencion.

Al Patriarca, en conjunto con sus obispos, se le confiere el derecho de confirmar, y consecuentemente el de no confirmar. O sea que tendra el derecho de veto sobre todas las decisiones importantes de la conduccion de nuestra Iglesia, incluyendo la eleccion de obispos.

Acaso esto no es unificacion de Iglesias y una subordinacion de nuestra Iglesia a Moscu? Que es esto?

Segun admitio abiertamente el Patriarcado, nuestra Iglesia debe convertirse en una autogobernada parte suya, parecida a las Iglesias de Lituania o Estonia. Asegurar al mismo tiempo que no se presupone ninguna unificacion o subordinacion, como se hace en el borrador de la carta al Metropolitano Kiprian, significa lisa y llanamente inducir concientemente a error, es decir a enganar.

Al convertirse en dependiente del  Patriarca y de quienes lo rodean, nuestra Iglesia ya no sera independiente, es decir autocefala de facto, como lo fuera, (y sigue siendo), por espacio de 80 anos. Durante los cuales tuvo algo mas que autonomia: independencia. Nuestra Iglesia no necesita de ningun tipo de autonomia, por mas seductora que esta le pueda parecer a personas poco informadas.

Es significativo, que la palabra independencia, que define con exactitud nuestro status al dia de hoy, es cuidadosamente evitada por los redactores de los documentos mencionados en relacion a la Iglesia del exilio. Y queda bastante claro el motivo por el cual el Patriarcado Moscovita quiere por cualquier medio, privarnos de esa independencia y autogestion y someternos a el.

Al haber quedado claro hacia donde estan llevando las conversaciones con el Patriarcado Moscovita, es decir a la unificacion con el bajo su poder, me parece atinado poner fin a todo tipo de conversaciones con el Patriarcado Moscovita, hasta que no se aclare su posicion sobre este tema.

Si ellos llegan a aceptar nuestra indpendencia, entonces podremos hablar con ellos, de igual a igual, sobre el mejoramientos de las relaciones entre nuestras Iglesias independientes, incluyendo la Eucaristia en comun. De lo contrario, nosotros podemos continuar nuestra existencia independiente sin la bendicion de Moscu.

Los redactores de los documentos en cuestion pierden de vista que la religion y el patriotismo son  cosas diferentes. La Ortodoxia y el Patriarcado de Moscu no son una sola cosa. Se puede ser ruso y seguir siendo ortodoxo y no pertenecer al Patriarcado Moscovita.

Los griegos etnicos pertenecen a distintas Iglesias autocefalas, como la de Alejandria, Antioquia y otras. Su pertenencia a estas Iglesias, no hace de ellos gente mas o menos ortodoxa que otros, y ellos no dejan de ser griegos.

Nuestro comun origen de ancestros rusos no nos obliga a someternos al patriarca de Moscu. Y mas aun si tenemos en cuenta que el y la mayor parte de su entorno habian sido puestos por el gobierno sovietico, enemigo de Rusia. Y ahora ellos quieren hacer creer que no paso nada especial y que nosostros debemos subordinarnos a ellos.

Debemos rechazar esto decididamente!

Si nos subordinaramos al patriarca, no solo perderiamos nuestra autogestion y nuestra independencia, sino tambien a muchos miles de nuestros feligreses, descendientes de aquellos rusos exiliados, para satisfacer las necesidades  espirituales de los cuales fue justamente creada nuestra Iglesia. Tambien perderiamos a la mayor parte del clero y a parte del obispado.

Todas las reglas eclesiasticas tiene como su meta principal, si no la unica, el provecho espiritual de la grey. Si nuestra Iglesia se unifica ahora con el Patriarcado Moscovita, muchas miles de esas personas se quedaran sin Iglesia. Quien quiere eso?

Acaso nuestra conciencia de pastores nos permitira aceptar eso?

Muchos miles de personas pertenecen a nuestra Iglesia. Si tuvieran el deseo de encontrarse bajo el poder del patriarca de Moscu, podrian pasarse a el en cualquier momento. Pero ellos no lo hacen. Esto significa que prefieren  estar en la Iglesia que no depende de el. Y lo hacen conscientemente, no por casualidad.

Alguien puede decir que toda esa masa de gente que pertenece a nuestra Iglesia esta en ella por error de informacion? Es absurdo hasta pensar en eso!

Si nosotros nos unificaramos ahora con Moscu, traicionariamosa a nuestros hermanos que se nos han confiado. Seria un acto de liquidacion de nuestra Iglesia. Dicho de otra manera, un suicidio.

Que es lo que recibiriamos a cambio? Decididamente, nada! No nos convertiriamos en ortodoxos, por cuanto nunca dejamos de serlo. Si va a existir no una, sino dos Iglesias rusas independientes, que tendria eso de malo? La cantidad de Iglesias ortodoxas independientes que conforman la Iglesia Una Santa Sobornaia y Apostolica nunca ha formado parte de la ensenanza de la fe.

Y las cuestiones importantes, el ser o no ser de esta u otra Iglesia no pueden ser decididas con una simple mayoria de votos. Aqui hace falta tener una decision unanime o casi unanime de todos los miembros de determinada Iglesia. Dificilmente tengamos esa unanimidad en el tema que nos ocupa.

Por eso es mejor seguir ateniendonos a nuestro antiguo status quo, y suspender la unificacion con el Patriarcado Moscovita por tratarse de un asunto innecesario.

* * *

ADDRESS OF BISHOP DANIEL OF ERIE

VICAR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS,

SERVICING OLD-RITE BELIEVERS

To the Clergy, Monastics and Parishioners

Of The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

On the Threshhold of the IV th Pan-abroad Sobor 2006  In San Francisco

Speaking:  Bishop Daniel, Vicar of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad on Old-Believers Affairs.

I wish to address you and share some of my thoughts on matters which are troubling us, which I had written down a year ago, yet have not lost their significance at the current time.

Dear Vladika’s, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters in the Lord!

At one time I had addressed you in connection with the dialogue which is being conducted between our Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate.  I feared that this dialogue would lead to the unification of our Churches under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, and subsequently, to the complete annihilation of our independence, which we have had for more than eighty years now.

I was reassured that the issue was not unification of the Churches, and not our subordination to Moscow, but merely  improving relations between our Churches.

I have nothing against that, and allowed myself to be persuaded that nothing threatens the existence of our Church as self-sufficient and independent.

Then I received an entire package of documents from our Church’s  Synod of Bishops on these matters and it took me quite a while to read them and think them over.

Therefore, I find it indispensable to address you again, since the documents that were sent to me far surpass my worst fears, and I will unlikely be able to personally be present in conciliar discussion of these issues.

In the beginning much is said about mutual relations between the Church and the state, about ecumenism from an Orthodox point of view, and we can only rejoice at this, since in the recent past, or “yesterday” on a historical scale, the Moscow Patriarchate was under full and unequivocal submission to the godless, communist authority, which seized our Fatherland and would have belonged to any organization on  instructions from that authority.

Our Church never was in a union with the godless authority and never belonged to any ecumenical organizations, therefore none of this has any direct relationship to us.  One can only hope that the Moscow Patriarchate will not elude these principles.

All the talk that  unification or subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate is not being conjectured is absolutely unsubstantiated.

At first nothing is mentioned about commemorating the first hierarch, probably so as not to aggravate the flock abroad, but then it turns out that the election of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad is subject to confirmation by the Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the name of the First Hierarch will be commemorated only after the name of the Patriarch; a commemoration which hitherto had not been mentioned.

The Patriarch together with his bishops is given the right to ratify, and consequently not ratify, i.e., the right to veto all important decisions on leadership within our Church, including election of bishops.

Is this not the union of the Churches and is this not the subordination of our Church unto Moscow?

What is this?

According to the candid admission of the Patriarchate, our Church must become one of its self-governing parts – similar to the Churches of Latvia or Estonia.  To say thereby, that no unification or subordination is presumed, as it is done in the draft letter to Metropolitan Kiprian, simply means to consciously lead people into delusion, i.e. to deceive them.

In becoming dependent on the Patriarch et al, our Church will no longer remain independent, i.e., autocephalous de facto, as it had been and continues to be now more than eighty years, having something greater than autonomy, namely independence.  Our Church has no need for any autonomy, no matter how alluring this autonomy may seem to poorly informed people.

It is revealing that the word “independence”, which precisely defines our position as of today, is painstakingly avoided by the compilers of the documents under review, with reference to the Church Abroad, and it is quite clear why the Moscow Patriarchate wishes to deprive us of this self-sufficiency and independence and make us subordinate unto itself, using any kinds of truths or falsehoods.

In view of the fact that it has become clear where further talks with the Moscow Patriarchate are leading:  to unification with it, under the power of the Patriarch of Moscow, it appears to me to be advisable to cease further talks with the Moscow Patriarchate until such time that their position on this matter is clarified.

If they agree to recognize our independence, then we may have discussions with them on equal grounds, about improving relations between our two independent Churches, even to the point of Eucharistic communion, but if not, we can continue our independent existence with no need of Moscow’s blessing.

The compilers of the documents under review omit from view the fact that religion and patriotism are different subjects.  Orthodoxy and the Moscow Patriarchate are not one and the same.  One may be Russian and still be Orthodox, and not belong to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Ethnic Greeks belong to various autocephalous Churches, such as Alexandria, Antioch an others.  Their adherence to these Churches does not make them Orthodox to greater or lesser degrees than others, and they do not cease being Greeks.

Our common descent from Russian ancestors does not oblige us to submit to the Patriarch of Moscow,  particularly since he and the majority of his circle were appointees of the soviet regime, hostile to Russia, yet now they create the impression that nothing extraordinary happened, and that we must submit to their authority.

We must decidedly set this aside!

If we were to submit to the Patriarch’s authority, not only would we lose our self-sufficiency and independence, but also the many thousands of our flock, descendants of those Russian refugees for the fulfillment of whose spiritual needs our Church was established, as well as the majority of our clergy and a part of the hierarchy.

All church rules have as their only, if not sole purpose,  the spiritual benefit of the flock.  If our Church joins now with the Moscow Patriarchate, then many thousands of these people will be left without a Church.  Who needs that?

Can it be that our pastoral conscience will permit this to happen?

Many thousands of people belong to our Church.  If they have a desire to be under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, they can join it at any time, but they are not doing that.  That means, they prefer to be in a Church which is independent of it, and they do this consciously and not by happenstance.  Can it be that the majority of people who belong to our Church belong to it through misunderstanding?  It is ridiculous to even imagine this!

If we were to join Moscow now, then we would betray our brethren who trusted us.  This would be an act of the self-anihilation of our Church, in other words, suicide.

What would we receive in return?  Decidedly nothing! We would not become Orthodox, since we never ceased being Orthodox. If there is not one but two independent Russian Churches, then what is wrong with that? There are many Greek Churches. The number of independent Orthodox Churches was never a subject in the teaching of the faith.  Also, important questions such as to be or not to be with certain Churches cannot be decided by a simple majority of votes.  In this case unanimity is necessary, or an almost unanimous decision by all the members of a given Church.  It’s doubtful that we have unanimity in this matter of interest to us.

Therefore, it is better for us to adhere to our old status quo and set aside unification with the Moscow Patriarchate as a frivolous fancy.

* * *

This interview with His Eminence Bishop Daniel was recorded  by G. Soldatow.

The video and taperecording of this address are in the editorial office of “Fidelity”.

March, 2006

* * *

THE PENULTIMATE BETRAYAL

by Eugenia Richard

With the publicizing of the documents on the joint work of the commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, finally the forces of the antichrist and new world order have shown their cards. By having signed these documents unanimously, our hierarcy deceived us. In the wake of the release of these documents in June of 2005, there has been much outrage and dissention. At the outset of these dialogues, the effort was made to persuade the general opinion of the flock that dialogue with the MP was necessary for the sake of the common Russian people. The argument was even made that it was the duty of the Church Abroad to “save” the MP. But those poor Russian people, who have valiantly rejected the MP with its history of collaboration with a militantly atheistic regime, which stamped out the truth of Christ and embodied the darkness, betrayal, treachery and murderous methods of the soviet apparatus, while dressing as bishops and feigning liturgies in state-sanctioned cathedrals – these long-suffering poor Russian people have now been betrayed by a church outside of Russia. We have put ourselves in a position where soon we will no longer have dialogue, but monologue, mandates, acts, directives, edicts – the path to totalitarian rule in the church, soon to be headed by the supreme authority – alexei (aka Drozdov), who will reserve the right of decision making in areas he deems to be outside our expertise (which is an all-encompassing field), which will include the major areas of property ownership, morality, political involvement, membership in new world order organizations, concelebration with the vatican and other “confessions”. This will entail not only the loss of ecclesiastical freedom, but the relinquishing of personal freedom implemented through the very sacrament of confession and church attendance. This will mean a total capitulation of the positions of our holy predecessors and hierarchs who well defined the narrow path and raison d'etre of the church abroad. This will be a repeat of the overthrow of the Romanov empire and the rewriting of its history by the soviets, for as their demand requires that all statements made over our eighty year history be deemed invalid (if they in any way stood in the way of this diabolical unification). In essence we will rewrite the glorious history of the remnant church abroad and invalidate all of its positions, accomplishments and aspirations. We will permit these maligners to mock our precious Metropolitans and Bishops, who spoke out about the dangers of these apocalyptic times and the rush for mankind to unite creating a footstool for the antichrist. Simoultaneously, these “documents” attempt to validate and rewrite sergianist history, making humanistic excuses for the atrocities committed with the acquiescence of the sergianist church, and not only diminishing just blame, but brazenly praising those actions. They wish to enter into the pages of history those ugly decades of persecutions of the faithful, torture in prisons and psychiatric hospitals as a “misunderstanding” of sergianism. Furthermore, the geopolitical interests of Russia will be the governing principles for Rocor churches located in other countries. We will be serving a new caesar.

What shocking formulas are being presented to us in these documents. We have conceded on all issues – the renunciation of sergianism, the renunciation of ecumenism, the withdrawal from the WCC. The cunning, diabolical justifications for maintaining their grounds are outrageous. Brazenly they quote “God Himself” as having commanded that the gospels be preached throughout the nations. But when the MP joined the WCC in 1961 after the inglorious council of Bishops, when signatures were coerced into endorsing the agenda and the lawless was made lawful, it was with the sole purpose of obtaining a world platform to enable them to deny that they were involved in the religious repression in their country. It was not to proselytize! They have conceded nothing, but even more, they are now forcing their absolute totalitarian rule over us in virtually all matters. It appears that there was not a single voice among our hierarchy which was raised to stay our ground. Furthermore, as they have demonstrated before, they deploy the tactic of summoning up the silent supposed support of St. John of Shanghai, implying that when he prayed for the armed forces during the second world war, he was in fact supporting the soviet regime. Having devised the new “basic social conceptions” and the notion of “social expedience” these principles will be applied as the new canonical framework for the actions of the church (on the world stage). These new guidelines lead us into syncretism with all world religions, which as we were forewarned will develop the new religion of humanism and the brotherhood of man, in preparation for the antichrist. As Bishop Nektary of Seattle, of blessed memory predicted, what happened in soviet Russia will eventually happen here. This is a silent revolution, an insidious takeover of free Orthodox Christians in the free world. By redefining ourselves according to their perceptions; by invalidating the platform and statements of our forefathers, we in effect are dissolving/destroying the remnant which was the church abroad, and spiritually are feeding the very Blood and Body of our Saviour directly into the mouth of the pernicious serpant. As we are not careful to hold on to what we have and easily forget the history of our honored predecessors, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and Philaret of blessed memory, likewise we easily forget the origins of the organization with which we have entered into negotiations. In 1927, while bishops were being martyred by the hundreds, Sergei Starogorodsky recognized the soviet antichrist regime as “God-pleasing”, thereby rendering himself and his church structure illegitimate to this day. Hence the true mother church found itself in two parts physically – the church within the soviet union in the catacombs and the church abroad. Starogorodsky's “church” was not part of that equation. After the soviet inspired “living church” dwindled to the point of only four ruling bishops at liberty and only a few thousand churches left open for worship, in 1943 Stalin convened three ruling bishops to restore its status in public existence. (See Eugenia Albats, “A State within a State”) Yet again the state purged the faithful under Kruschev from 1959 – 64 leading to unprescdented dissent from the faithful. Due to the 1970's detente and increased communication and travel outside the country, tens of thousands of samizdat accounts reached the west speaking of the devastating reprisals and persecutions. (Of particular note is Michael Bordeaux's “Patriarch and Prophets: Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church.) Also learned from the Mitrokhin files, “The Sword and the Shield”, by Christopher Andrew, the 1970's marked the era of intense infiltration and recruiting among parishes outside of the soviet union. Andrews relates Drozdov's specific involvement in the Rodina Society to promote cultural relations with compatriots abroad and quotes Eugenia Albats (“A State within a State”), that “'An order was drafted by the USSR KGB chairman to award an honorary citation to agent DROZDOV' for unspecified services to state security.”* The church abroad (also known as 'nedorezannye') had been a thorn from the early days of Stalin and he pursued his vow to return all escapees from the Soviet Union by the horrifying repatriation carried out after the Yalta Accord. Brezhnev continued to repeat the theme, going one step further, declaring that any descendents of Soviets, no matter where they were born, were automatically considered soviet citizens. Lest we forget the most appaling abuse of phsychiatric practices in the 1980's under Andropov, where ideological dissidents (believers) were tortured and destroyed with mind altering drugs.** We witnessed the MP's brazen takeover of several European parishes and sites in the Holy Land in the 1990's – how soon we have forgotten that. How obviously the hand has consistently reached outside its borders in its obsession to devour us. What any outcry resulted after the announcement of the Sobor October 2000 decision to engage in dialogue. One third of the church broke away, and the church has continued to dwindle in number. The current directory of ROCOR has more vacancies than rectors! Yet the ground for this unification was being methodically ploughed without any concern over the scattering of the flock.

There can only be unity with Christ, and if we are in unity with Christ, then we also are in unity with those who are also in unity with Christ. But to be in unity with anyone and everyone – unity at any price – this is not the unity we have been praying for, the true unity, in truth, faith and love of Christ Who is the church. We do not disdain others who because of no knowledge of Orthodoxy believe themselves to have faith in Christ. As Christians, we must not disdain any other believers, for it is not ours to judge. This will be for the Lord to judge – according to their knowledge. But if we do not follow Him, then we have no unity with Him or His true followers. Unity is not something forged by man – unity is a state which proceeds from the mystery which is in Truth. Documents and human decrees do not dictate or forge reality. God is reality, and everything that proceeds from Him is that is. (I am that I am). But this truth is under seige just as everything in the spiritual realm is constantly under attack by evil. Now this worldy evil is seeking to sink its teeth into the remnant of the church, as the dessert it craved after devouring the faith in Holy Russia. It is obvious that this evil did not act on its own, for their were human coconspirators. If these men (and women) knew of the staunch conservative position of the ROCOR, why did they enter its ranks and even assume ordained positions? If in ideology they were in unity with the sergianists – WHY did they enter OUR narrow doors? It would have been more logical for them to simply enter the ranks of the mp. Why did they do their clandestine work among us to attempt to make us radically change our course? Do any of us have in our memory the history of the church abroad, its struggles, its resistance to the new humanism leading to antichrist? Do any of us dare to allow the memory of the orthodox holocaust – the soviet revolution – fade into the past? Can any of us consciously support the willful dissolution of our church as it has existed for eighty years and allow it not only to pass into obscurity, but willfully annihilate its history? Do any of us wish to see a repeat of the orthodox holocaust, the destruction of the memory of our bright hierarchs who taught us that although we live in the world, we are not of this world? Metropolitan Philaret lies incorrupt, witnessing even after death to the anathema against ecumenism and his sorrowful epistles. We see the soviet style repression and silencing of opposition being conducted today among our clergy. Suspensions, ukazes have being imposed to silence men of conscience who simply speak out against this outrageous takeover. “Fear not the ecumenists, fear the zealots”, is the new modus operandi. But the Lord warned the lukewarm of heart, that they would be spit out! This new persecution and repression is not historically or canonically correct – it smacks of soviet style repression, for the laios, the believing body, often spoke out in church history against the mistaken meanderings of the hierarchy.

In all of the bilateral agreements regarding positions stated in these “statements” and “acts” there is the devious attempt to throw in some scriptural passage to give these positions a warm and humanistic aura. Yes, anyone can pull a single holy passage from the scriptures and apply it as an absolute to achieve their own interpretation and assessment of a specific situation. If the mp is now resorting to pulling scriptural passages at random to achieve their own agenda, WHY over the course of their 80 year history did they not allow the scriptures to be taught in their own country, and now suddenly they quote the scriptures to lull us into a false sense of brotherhood with them? According to their Act on Canonical Communion, our bishops become members of their Pomestny councils and will be instructed to act in a conciliatory manner with fellow members (MP) – this is not autonomy – this is amalgamation. They dare to say that “through Divine Providence” the sergianist church produced martyrs. This bizarre perversion of the truth is echoed by equally bizarre perversions of the truth throughout all statements adopted by this dialogue participants. Paragraph by paragraph, each outrageous claim and statement outdoes the last. The blatantly obvious shamelessness of these statements is interspersed with statements designed to placate the bewildered reader, such as, but of course “the Orthodox Church excludes any possibility of liturgical communion with the non-Orthodox...NONETHELESS...it may be appropriate to participate in socially meaningful ceremonies in which other confessions are represented.” READ BETWEEN THE LINES!

These “documents” read like dictatorial plans from soviet archives. Who has permitted our church to be destroyed and sold to the MP? For it is obvious that if these documents will be ratified, surely, more definitive “acts”, “subcommittees”, “commissions” will follow which will entrench the supreme authority of Moscow, with all ensuing repercussions. Once these documents are ratified, there will be no “dialogue”, no questioning, no opposing. You will be living in the newly resurrected soviet apparatus, and you will have no place to go, just as the poor Russian people in Russia, who do not wish to be members of the mp, have no place to go. This behemoth, who has survived for 80 years in a militantly atheistic system, whose hierarchs were promoted based on “service and allegiance to the state”, has developed a fine-tuned methodology for absolute control and tyrrany. This new holocaust which we see happening in our church abroad is the fruition of a series of 5, 10 and twenty year plans, carefully carried out by the servants of the antichrist to stomp the Truth of Christ underfoot. This is the abomination of desolation in high places, for what use is it for the devil to invade a secular place? No, he cannot defile that which is not holy. His greatest pleasure is in desacrating that which is holy – it's no surprise he has done this to our precious and holy church. Our current hierarchs have betrayed their flock through action and inaction, but most obviously through having unanimously signed these documents, and now await a hand-selected group of representatives to “discuss” ratification in May. Yet, it comes as no surprise that now the chief hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus is publically claiming a reversal of his position. Citing concern over loss of authority in appointing priests and bishops, and also complications in joint ownerships of property (ROCA/MP), “Nezavisimaya Gazeta” reports on December 12, 2005, “according to the words of the hierarch, the form of ecclesiastical interaction will be joint services..”). Notwithstanding the fact that his counterpart in the negotiations told BBC's Konstantine Eggert on December 12, 2005 that “the discussions which have been held on the many problems inspire hope that the remaining issues will be resolved.”, one cannot ignore the political orthodoxy which the Russian Federation is attempting to implement as a new moral fabric in its country which is of prime interest to its leader. However ONE CHALICE is the ultimate betrayal! No matter how many concerns were voiced over the implications of the joint documents, the essence of our liturgical life, the very centre which is paramount, the very Body and Blood of our Saviour which we so lovingly guarded from being diluted in the mad pursuit of ecumenism and the new world order is now being offered as a concession to back out of what now is being presented as an unacceptable deal! How was the intention to plunge off the cliff blindfolded and fall into the arms of the Sergianist/Stalinist/Soviet/KGB “church” suddenly halted, like a giant locomotive with its course set on collision, with events unfolding at such speed, incurring schism and lost souls along its path. What can the flock expect now? In this confusion, it appears that we are repeating history! The regicide committed over 80 years ago is about to be repeated, but this time it is the regicide of The King of Kings, as it was one thousand nine hundred and seventy three years ago!

We have written, pleaded, spoken out and prayed. We continue to observe the unceasing ecumenical activities of the MP. On April 27^th the Vatican and Moscow met with “positive” prospects for opening the Orthodox/Catholic dialogue. Observers note a thaw in relations. June21st, Alexei received the WCC delegation in Moscow stressing the need for inter-religious dialogue and cooperation against religious extremism. Alexei warmly welcomed them, calling for Christian solidarity. These are only two examples out of a whirl of activity. If all our words and opposition fall now on deaf (and adversarial) ears, then we seem to be back in time when the new hieromartyrs of Russia staunchly refused to be with the sergianist church and some even said it is better not to attend those churches at all. But how difficult it is in these apocalyptic days to be among those few scattered Christians, who have been deprived of worship in temples. We will not change the course that Rocor has now embarked upon. We now skeptically await the forum for _expression in May, but this is under the guise of magnanimity, fairness and freedom of speech. There is concern that those forces within our own church who have worked to forge this monstrous union will not give up, and now they want the opposition to reveal itself, so they can use their powers of persuasion to stamp out any opposing grounds. Nor will they wake up, for they are now blinded by their ambitious goal. But why did we need this – to deprive ourselves of our freedom and purity? What was forcing us to make such drastic compromises in our faith? Are we living under a militant atheistic regime or are we deprived of food or work if we do not give in? Are we prisoners of repression or ruled by malicious threat? Let us seek a safe omophorion, for God can raise up for us from rocks, men from the seed of Abraham. Let us pray and AWAKE.

Sources:

*Andrew, Christopher, “The Sword and the Shield – The Mitrokhin File and the Secret History of the KGB (USA, Basic Books, 1999)

**Barron, John, “KGB TODAY – The Hidden Hand” (New York, Berkley Books, 1985)

Ellis, Jane, “The Russian Orthodox Church – A Contemporary History” (Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 1986)

Albats, Evgenia, “The State within a State” (New York, Farrar-Straus-Giroux, 1994)

* * *

О ЦАРСКОЙ РОССИИ - ЯЗЫКОМ ФАКТОВ

ЕЛИЗАВЕТА ВЕДЕНЕЕВА

При монархическом строе небольшое московское княжество превратилось

Из тьмы лесов, из топи блат

в огромную империю, подлинно «на страх надменным соседям». И на которую с надеждой уповали остальные славянские народы, оказавшиеся под игом кто немцев, кто мадьяр, кто турок. Да и не только славяне – греки, румыны, армяне и грузины все с надеждой смотрели на русского царя. А он мог по справедливости сказать, что когда он удит рыбу, Европа может подождать.

Конечно, это все потребовало и долгих лет и тяжелых условий. Зато большевикам хватило неполных ста лет, чтобы превратить Россию в груду развалин. Правда, керенские республиканцы еще до них сумели страну бросить в хаос, и это – за несколько месяцев.

Россия не только расширяла границы и побеждала на поле боя: ее культура во всех областях – литература, музыка, живопись, - заняли почетное место на мировой арене.

Коммунисты, при помощи «социалистического реализма» сумели создать культурную пустоту. Таланты-то появлялись, но… шли под расстрел, или под чекистскую пулю, или под смерть в концлагере; или, главным образом, молчали и не творили.

Что уж говорить о том,  - да оно всем известно, - что царская Россия была «житницей Европы», а советская выморила голодом обширные области, а потом держала все государство в полуголодном состоянии (кроме верхов компартии и чекистов). Как резюмировал народ:

Когда Ленин умирал,

Сталину наказывал

Чтоб нам хлеба не давал

Мяса не показывал!

Этот же народ кровавый марксистский режим втянул в безумную войну между двумя тиранами, в которой ничего не мог выиграть (ибо вожди были, в точности, «оба хуже»), и которая тяжело подорвала самую основу воспроизводства нации.

Не говоря уже о том, что целые народности высылались на каторгу по лучшим рецептам геноцида, и искусствено разжигалась между ними взаимная ненависть. Анектодически, Сталин и его сообщники показали себя даже и антисемитами не меньше Гитлера.

Воевали с людьми – выкорчевали весь образованный класс, офицеров, дворян, купцов, работящих крестьян, разрушали церкви, истребили духовенство, расшатали все моральные и исторические традиции. Не меньше воевали и с природой: осушили Аральское море, распахали степи сделав их неплодородными, затопили широкие пространства болотной водой…

И теперь хотят с гордостью вспоминать все подобные свои подвиги и на них строить будущее!…

Ну, нет. Если вы, господа кремлевские вожди с вашей архинелепой и архипродажной Думой и опирясь на прежних захребетников из советской элиты и их прямых потомков и можете заставить своих несчастных подданных подчиняться сумасшедшей программе, - то нас-то, русских эмигрантов, сумевших сохранить заветы подлинной, настоящей России, Святой Руси, нас вы не принудите встать перед вами на колени!

Мы знали, конечно, что когда разница между двумя зонами – концлагерной и остальной почти стерлась, когда черные вороны клевали если не каждую то одну из двух семей по всей территории, обнимавшей одну шестую земного гара, люди пели

Мы другой такой страны не знаем

Где так вольно дышит человек

Но мы к этому хору не присоединимся. Мы были две трети века голосом свободной России – и намерены им остаться!

НАША СТРАНА №2792

* * *

“What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (St. Matthew XVI. 26.)

Eugenia Richard

Where shall I find the Christian who by his actions teaches others to despise the flesh, as soon passing away, and to care for the immortal soul? Where shall I find a man of such an elevated spirit? It is hard to find such a one on earth, though certainly there are some such, but in the “Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven” in the heavenly Church, there are as many such men as there are stars in heaven. By renouncing themselves, the old corrupt, lost man, the broken vessel that cannot contain any water, they have taken up their crosses and followed Christ, they have given up their whole lives to Him, despising the flesh and the world as transitory. They heard the voice saying, “What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (St. Matthew XVI. 26.) and they knew that the flesh and the world shall pass away and shall be no more; that our soul is priceless, because, being an image of God, it is immortal, and that, therefore, the whole world is worth nothing in comparison with the soul, that it is transitory, for “Heaven and earth shall pass away” (St. Mark XII. 3l.), according to the word of the Saviour. Besides, at every step, with our own eyes, we become convinced of the transitoriness of the world: everything in the world moves and revolves, and all the elements are in motion, the seasons of the year change – whilst with men, some are born, some die, some marry, others lose their wives, some build themselves houses, whilst others are deprived of dwellings and property; some towns extend and are embellished, whilst others are destroyed by fire and reduced to ashes. Everything upon earth passes away, and this shows that the earth itself shall some day also pass away. If everything in the house takes fire, then the house itself will be burnt. “The heavens and the earth are…reserved unto fire. Thereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Peter III.7.). Where then, shall I find true Christians, who despise everything earthly as transitory, and strive will all their might to please God their eternal Father, and to save their souls? Where shall I find a man of such lofty spirit that, like some king or god, he would despise everything earthly for God’s sake, and would bravely subdue to this reason or to the law of God all worldy passions and attachments? Who would be zealous with God’s zeal for the salvation of his brethren, and would care for their enlightenment, cleansing, and strengthening in faith and virtue? Lord! Raise such lights on the candelabrum of this world, on the candelabrum of Thy Church, that they may preach Thy glory, that they may be zealous of Thy glory and of the salvation of Thy people! Lord, all things are possible unto Thee! Lord, how long shall the vanity of this world move? How long shall we turn away from Thee, our Creator and Saviour? Lord, let all things concerning us be ordered according to Thy will! St. John of Kronstadt

How many Christians there are who say, “I believe in God,” without in reality believing! How many mouths are dumb when in the company of men it is necessary to defend the glory of God and of His saints, which is blasphemed by the children of this world! Some remain silent when it is necessary to support the conversation concerning God, or to put a stop to any disrespect or insolence. Many say, “I believe in God”’ but should any misfortune or temptation arise, they grow fainthearted and despondent. Sometimes they begin to murmur. And what becomes of all their faith? This should be the very time to show submission to the will of God, and to say, “Let it be as the Lord wills.” “Blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job I. 21.). Otherwise it is evident that they only believe in God in the time of happiness, and renounce Him in the time of misfortune. St. John of Kronstadt.

The most abominable enemy endeavours to destroy love by love itself: love for God and our neighbour – by love for the world, for its fleeting blessings and its corrupt, impious habits, by carnal love, by the love of riches, of honours, of pleasure, of various amusements. Therefore let us extinguish every love for this world in ourselves and let us kindle in ourselves, by self-denial, love for God and our neighbour. Every beauty in this world (Personal beauty) is only a faint, insignificant shadow of the uncreated beauty, of the unspeakable goodness of God’s face; every earthly enjoyment is nothing in comparison to the future delights. I pray, Lord, that the faith of Christ may penetrate into the depths of my heart, that Christ’s Gospel may penetrate all my thoughts, feelings, words, and deeds, into all my bones and my brain, and not me only, but all men, as the universal truth, the highest wisdom, and the life eternal. “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent” (St. John XVII. 3). St. John of Kronstadt

“These things I command you, that ye love one another. If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” (St.John 15: 17-24)

“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou, shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them for the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.” (St. John 17: 5-19)

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” (St. John 10: 1-5)

“Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.” (St. John 10: 7-17)

“”Jesus answered them, I told you and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one.” (St. John 10: 25-30)

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth into life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (St. Matthew 7: 12-23)

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (St. Matthew 18: 2 –6)

We have neared the dread day when Our Lamb will again be led to slaughter. The enemy which worked against the Truth has gripped the remnant of the Church of Christ and will now enslave it to the merciless beast and prince of this world, the atheism-serving institution which survived even the atheist state. The nomenclature organism established by the mass murderer Joseph Stalin has infiltrated the ranks of clergy and hierarchy in the Russian Church Abroad and brought about a total collapse of the once-glorious beacon of truth to the world. The only church which resisted the global movement of ecumenism; spoke out bravely against the heresy of sergianism, is now being trampled by those from within and without. The honorable pillars of the church, our ever-memorable hierarchs will be debilitated, while Sergius, Stalin, Rasputin and Ivan the terrible will be rehabilitated. Cunning pseudo-truths, rose-colored lies have blinded many persons of integrity

False love has been used to destroy Love. In place of the gospel of righteousness, they have enthroned the gospel of Russianness. In pursuit of personal ambition and glory, in violation of church discipline, the conspirators have stifled the voice of the people’s conscience The workers in the diabolical vineyard have labored relentlessly rewriting history, distorting the teachings of our recent and ancient pillars of the church If we labor over ourselves during the Lenten period, let us see the fear, faintheartedness and lukewarmness which have been deliberately instilled into our hearts. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God. Accursed are the conniving, scheming, lying ones who have called white grey and black white, who have used pragmatic rationalization to label our forefathers “isolationists”. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God. Accursed are the hirelings who have sown disturbance, confusion, fear, repression of the faithful and schism in the church. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Accursed are the distorters and perverters of truth, who wish us now to believe that ecumenism has been redeemed and sergianism excused and rehabilitated; who have persecuted the righteous who spoke up for Truth and renamed them zealots. Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Accursed are the hardened of heart hierarchs who cared not for the salvation or well-being of the flock; who hold in their clutches properties lovingly built by the faithful with meager resources; who turned a deaf ear to thousands of voices that begged for some crumbs of truth about what was being said and done in darkness, when the fate of the flock was at stake; who cared not that they would themselves be condemned by history as the greatest heresiarchs of the last days, and would deprive the flock of sacramental life. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Accursed are the ecclesiastical imperialists, driven by blind ambition and greed, not motivated by love or even a sense of honorable obligation to their flock, but on the contrary lull the flock into a false sense of submission, particularly during the Lenten period, so that the final coup will proceed more smoothly. Even more insidiously, the flock is urged to pray for those very beacons, whose position and memory is about to be scandalously violated and destroyed. The forthcoming council of the ungodly, desecrating the relics of St. John by its mere presence, cloaked in secrecy and intrigue, pre-determined, inaccessible to the laity at large, preselected, stacked and unprescedented in lack of sobornost (except for the institutionalization of Stalin’s church apparatus)is being called a great work, holy in sacred importance. If the call to “move foreward” elicited the crash of St. John’s icon, this renovationist revolution may precipitate a more cataclysmic sign, given the precariousness of the entire San Andreas fault! The blood of the new martyrs of Russia will cry out against the new lies – that membership in the WCC is (and was) to help the poor suffering Stalinist institution (whose hierarchs enjoyed the privileges of the nomenclatura, while persecuted priests and laiety lived in poverty, if not in the gulag altogether).The monstrous union is not with the pious priests and much-suffering laiety – it is with the nomenclatura who continues its former path of rejoicing with the state or grieving with the state, not the people, and perpetuating the lie of sergianism, deliberate duplicity for the sake of self-preservation and furthering the agenda of the state, which justifies treachery, betrayal, and every other unseemly action, antithetical to the teachings of Christ God. The Russian church of eighteen years ago for which we prayed was, apart from the catacombs of the time, the historical entity which had all but perished during the Orthodox Holocaust. That was the Mother, just as Byzantium was the Mother, just as the seven new testament churches were the Mother, just as the Mystical Supper was the Mother. The MP is NOT the Mother, nor ever has been. The cupolas, vestments, buildings are soon to resemble the cupolas, buildings and properties of what is to become the former embodiment of the ROCOR. Those who will have departed from the path, will undoubtedly hold in their clutches all the appurtenances, but the TRUE FAITH will remain among the faithful who will not partake of the holy mysteries which have been consecrated in spiritual union with the new world orthodox institution; they will not accept anointment by chrism which has been “cooked” in KGB kitchens. They will not recognize the canonicity, apostolic succession, nor genuineness of a thrice-anathematized apparatus, no matter how elaborate its faзade. Nor will it ever believe the official words of “repentance” publically offered by agent Drozdov, out of political expedience. True repentance requires a model of “sackcloth and ashes”, at the very least resignation and wiping the slate clean. The Sergianist Declaration, the new credo of compromise, justified 80 years of unconscionable behavior. It bred a new form of quasi-spirituality, as foreign to ROCOR as idol-worship. To merely issue a crafty new credo, and say, “look, now we’re different” is a ruse. If you dip a black dog in water, it comes out wet, not white. By merely issuing this politically expedient new position, the Social Conception, this cannot reverse the horror of the aspiritual life of soviet realism with its far reaching effects, instilled into the very ethos and moral fibre of the country, as the regime itself today admits and is at a loss how to reverse the damage. This damage will not be reversed until there is TRUE REPENTANCE. The morally decrepit apparatus can not be revived without it. We have seen over the last years since October 2000, how infectious its malaises are BUT LIES FROM WITHIN THE CHURCH CANNOT BE TOLERATED!..

FEAR NOT, SMALL FLOCK, FOR I AM WITH YOU UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

STAND FAST IN THE TRUTH Archbishop Averky+

HOLD ONTO WHAT YOU HAVE Metropolitan Philaret+

* * *

ИГНОРИРОВАНИЕ СЕРЬЕЗНЫХ ДУХОВНЫХ ВОПРОСОВ

ПРОТОИЕРЕЙ ГЕОРГИЙ ПРИМАК, Благочинный РПЦЗ на Канаду

Поскольку ни один из наших блаженной памяти первоиерархов и иерархов не сказал, что в МП нет благодати, нас хотят убедить, что сие означает, что в МП она есть. Это весьма странный подход к очень важному вопросу. Более логично и более убедительно было бы указать когда и где было сказано или написано, что там есть полная благодать. Если наши иерархи считали, что там полная благодать, то почему же они категорически отказывались иметь евхаристическое общение с благодатной Церковью? Скорее всего - нигде не было ни сказано, ни написано, что там полная благодать. Более того можно найти личные высказывания наших иерархов, которые указывают на совершенно противоположное.

Наша Церковь не имеет молитвенного общения с Церквами которые перешли на новый стиль, но я не помню, чтоб наши иерархи когда-нибудь называли их безблагодатными. Давайте, подумаем: может быть наши блаженной памяти первоиерархи и иерархи подали нам пример великой скромности считая, что они не были достойны решать относительно благодати в МП? В таком же духе высказался митрополит Киприан, греческой старостильной   церкви, когда спросили его мнение о благодати в новостильной греческой Церкви. Он ответил: кто я, чтоб решать это дело, это будет решено в будущем на вселенском соборе истинных православных Церквей; но мы на всякий случай избегаем любое молитвенное общение с ними». Я приглашаю всех тех, кто стараются убедить нас относительно благодати в МП, взять пример смиренности наших первоиерархов и спросить себя: достоин ли я решать, что она есть и имею ли я убедительные доказательство, чтобы я мог так усердно убеждать в этом моих собратьев?

Наши иерархи пожалуй задавали себо вопрос: могли ли получить благодать ставленники советской власти, безбожники, неверующие в Божию благодать, даже если они получили правильную хиротонию?

К сожалению нас держат в темноте относительно переговоров касающихся молитвенного общения с Московкой Патриархией. Мы, духованство нашей Церкви, не имеем малейшего понятия, что решалось во время этих переговоров. Знаем однако, что комиссия РПЦЗ приняла позицию МП, что деятельность митрополита Сергия были "подвигом служения". Это выглядит весьма прискорбно. так как еще десяток лет назад для лиц, входящих в сию комиссию, эта деятельность считалась предательством Церкви Христовой! Такого типа переговоры, где истина коверкается с целью ублажить противников, звучат более как политические, а не церковные.

Если рабское служение советской власти и покорное исполнение указов секретных органов считается подвигом служения, то значит отказ им служить Новомучеников и Исповедников Российских наша Зарубежная Церковь теперь  считает ошибкой? Тогда за что их прославили? И когда МП объявит митрополита Сергия святым, то и наша Церков будет поминать его вместе с Новомучениками и Исповедниками Российскими?

В мае 2005 года патриарх Алексей II поздравил президента Вьетнамской Социалистической Республики с 30-летием победы над американской армией, пытавшейся защитить Южный Вьетнам от комунистов, стремившихся его поработить, И он пожелал Божью помощь вьетнамскому правительству. Не выглядит ли это как поздравление одного комунистического лидера другому?

А в сентябре патриарх Алекей наградил мусульманского лидера Азебайджана орденом св. Сергия Радонежскаго первой степени.

Поздравление красному лидеру и награждение мусульманского - не является ли предупреждением нам от Господа? Который как бы нам напоминает:

«Дорогие дети будьте осторожны, вы не имеете понятия с кем вы хотите иметь дело!»

Один из представителей нашего духовенства, который сегодня высказывается за молитвенное общение с МП, в 1994 году писал:

«Почему разговоры с МП в настоящее время опасны? Это может вызвать глубокое разделение среди нашего духовенства и паствы, (То что в данный момент и происходит). Прот. Лев Лебедев считает, что порча в среде епископата МП слишком глубока и нет в ней искренности. Священник Тимофей Алферов, еще будучи в МП, предупреждал нас, что диалог с иерархией МП невозможен. И. Лапкин предупреждает, что окончательная смерть для Русской Церкви будет когда в МП пойдут на все требования Русской Православной Зарубежной Церкви, отрекутся от декларации митрополита Сергия, канонизируют новомучеников, выйдут из Всемирного Совета Церквей, из экуменизма. И все это без внутреннего перерождения, все это доброе будет сделано, как политический ход, и тогда у РПЦЗ не будет оснований не сесть за стол переговоров. И тогда большинством голосов подавят истину". Не ясно ли как был прав И. Лапкин? Не случается ли сегодня то, что он предвидел двенадцать лет тому назад?

Упомянутый выше клирик РПЦЗ, теперь ставший сторонником унии, в 1998 году в письме редакции газеты «Русь Православная», под заглавием «Быть на стороне гонимых и страждущих»  писал:

«Святейший Патриарх Тихон, последний признанный всеми русскими православными людьми Патриарх, предал большевиков анафеме. Кроме того он заклял всех, вступающих с ними в общение: «Заклинаем и всех вас, верных чад Православной Церкви Христовой, не вступать с таковыми извергами рода человеческого в какое либо общение». Если Святейший Патриарх Тихон заклял всех вступающих в общение с безбожной властью, а митрополит Сергий в своей Декларации сделал именно это, не простирается ли это заклятие на МП по сей день? Имело и имеет ли анфематствование Патриарха Тихона реальное значение и силу? А его заклятие? Кем эти анафематствование и заклятие были сняты? Это серьезные духовные вопросы и игнорировать их русский православный христианин никак не может».

Сегодня в нашей Церкви происходит как раз то, что сей клирик назвал недопустимым игнорированием серьезных духовных вопросов.

НАША СТРАНА №2791

=================================================================================================