Vertograd Orthodox Journal English Edition

Chairman of Election Commission Wears Sticharion at Services of the Moscow Patriarchate

2011-12-13T12:44:00.000-08:00

The Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation wears a sticharion, an ecclesiastical vestment normally reserved for minor clergy, at divine services of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), an ecclesiastical functionary close to the Patriarch reveals.

Kirill Florov, who is head of the “Association of Orthodox Experts,” which is close to Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev), Primate of the Moscow Patriarchate, wrote the following on his blog on December 10, 2011: “Vladimir Churov, Chairman of the Central Election Commission, is a church person and a parishioner at one of our churches in Moscow. I’ve received Communion with him, and the rector has blessed Churov to vest in a sticharion.”

Participants in the mass protests against the obviously falsified parliamentary elections in Russia on December 4, 2011, have accused Vladimir Churov of committing criminal offenses related to participation in electoral fraud and the concealment of known evidence tampering. Churov has stated on government-sponsored television that he has not received a single complaint regarding the violation of electoral laws, although observers, journalists, and ordinary voters have send thousands of such complaints to the Central Election Commission. Churov is also known for his promise to shave his beard if even a single violation of count voting be found, as well as for his words spoken in response to Dmitry Medvedev, hinting at vote manipulation: “I am not a magician, I’m just learning.”

Kirill Florov also confirms that Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev), who has not appeared in public since December 6, 2011, is in Moscow. Florov did not specify where and why the head of the Moscow Patriarchate dropped out of public view. Despite the serious disorder in Russia, no commentary on events has come from the part of Patrirach Kirill in the past week.

Representatives of Various True Orthodox Churches Attend Conference on “The Underground Church in the USSR”

2011-12-08T12:45:00.000-08:00

Representatives of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) (under both Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Bishop Gregory of Petrograd), and the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) as well as many well-known historians and scholars gathered to attend an international conference on “The Underground Church in the USSR,” which took place in Chernigov on November 18-19, 2011, reports Portal-Credo.Ru. The conference was organized by the Chernihiv State T.G. Shevchenko Pedagogical University and the Keston Institute (Oxford) with the support of the Chernihiv Oblast State Administration of Ukraine. The conference assembled on the eve of the memory of the Fathers and Confessors of the Catacomb Church associated with the day in 1937 on which two of the greatest luminaries of the Russian True Orthodox Church were shot: Metropolitan Joseph (Petrov) of Petrograd and Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) of Kazan.

Nowhere and never before, let alone in an academic atmosphere, had dozens of scholars from various countries who study the underground Church in the USSR gathered together alongside the “remnants” of this Church itself.

Nun Evphrosinia (Molchanova) (Provemont, France) from the Lesna Convent lectured on the theme of “The Catacomb Church in the Perception of the Russian Church Abroad.” Alexander Ogorodnikov, a prisoner of conscience from the Soviet period, noted that the catacomb period has been all but expunged from official church history, and even in textbooks for theological schools it is mentioned in passing and dismissively. Alexander Soldatov, editor in chief of Vertograd and Portal-Credo.Ru, related the history and ideology of the canonical structures of the Russian Church Abroad in Ukraine in the 1970s to the beginning of the 1990s.

Lev Regelson, the well-known scholar and author of the book The Tragedy of the Russian Church, in his speech entitled “The Question of the Nature of Ecclesiastical Authority in Connection with the Non-Commemorating Movement,” lamented that Russia and the official Church “have not learned a lesson from the history of the underground Church.” Mikhail Shkarovsky, a scholar of the Catacomb Church, related that the St. Petersburg Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate suggested canonizing Metropolitan Joseph and his “Josephite” followers who suffered for the faith, but the Synodal commission rejected these candidates. Talks were delivered by Archpriest Alexei Paro (RTOC), Archpriest Alexei Lebedev (ROAC), Irina Osipova ("Memorial" society), and many others.

At the conference an exhibition of photographs, books, manuscripts, and liturgical objects collected in various catacomb communities was on display. Following the meetings the participants of the conference enjoyed many and fruitful discussions in an informal setting. Photographs of the conference can be seen at Portal-Credo.Ru: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=87952&topic=773

On the Errors of Bishop Photios of Marathon and Fr. Panagiotis Carras

2011-12-04T11:27:00.000-08:00

The Divine Name controversy involved deeply complex theological issues that have as of yet not been fully resolved in conciliar manner by the Orthodox Church. It has been the subject of a small but expanding library of books and articles written by theologians, historians, and churchmen in a variety of languages and from a variety of perspectives. It is a topic about which reasonable people can disagree, inasmuch as the Church has not yet definitely resolved the issue.

What is unacceptable, however, is for people with no knowledge of either the theological complexities involved or the language in which the controversy was conducted, and with no familiarity with either the historical context or the primary sources – such as Bishop Photios of Marathon and Fr. Panagiotis Carras in their articles recently published on the offiical website of the Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Orthodox Church of America – unilaterally to declare it a "condemned heresy" and "superstition" (in Bishop Photios’ words) purely for reasons of jurisdictional rivalry (hence Bishop Photios’ reference to "the parasynagogues of the deposed or un-ordained [sic]" and Fr. Panagiotis’ explicit reference to Bishop Gregory of Petrograd and Gdov). This is all the more the case when such people display their ignorance by making a series of egregious factual mistakes.

The following is a list of factual errors made by Bishop Photios of Marathon and Fr. Panagiotis Carras with a brief response to each.

1. The "heresy" of name-glorifying was neither "lit" (Bishop Photios) nor "begun" (Fr. Panagiotis) by Schema-monk Ilarion, author of In the Mountains of the Caucasus. This book was originally blessed for publication in 1907, republished in 1910 with funds provided by the New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna; and printed a third time in an enormous print run by the Kiev-Caves in 1912. All were printed with full ecclesiastical sanction.

2. Fr. Panagiotes writes concerning the name-glorifiers: "Many of them argued that, since according to the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, the name of an object exists before the object itself does, so the name of God must pre-exist before the world was created, and that it (the Name) cannot be anything but God Himself. Among other things, this was thought to mean that knowledge of the secret name of God alone allows one to perform miracles. A similar concept exists in Jewish Kabbalah and in Buddhism." This is false from beginning to end. Who are the "many" that argued such evident nonsense? Can Fr. Panagiotis name a single name-glorifier who cited Plato? Where is the evidence that the name-glorifiers taught that God had a "secret name"? What is Fr. Panagiotis source for this information? Has he read any of the works of Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich)? In fact, the answer is quite clear: he copied and pasted this nonsense and slander verbatim from Wikipedia, hardly a reliable source for theological discussion.

3. Fr. Panagiotis claims that "the other Athonite monks" opposed Fr. Anthony. In fact, name-glorification was strong enough among Russian Athonites that they canonically elected one of their own as abbot of St. Andrew’s Skete. Moreover, over 800 name-glorifying monks were expelled from Athos in 1913.

4. Both Bishop Photios and Fr. Panagiotis speak as if the issue of name-glorification had been decisively resolved by the ecclesiastical authorities. If that were the case then the Russian Synod would not have issued a statement on May 7, 1914, and confirmed by decree of the Synod – which they were urged to do by personal appeal of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II – stating that the name-glorifiers "have no reason, based on the teaching on the names of God, to fall away from the Orthodox Church"; nor would name-glorifiers have served as army chaplains during World War I; nor would the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 have taken up the issue; nor would Patriarch Tikhon have openly served with Archimandrite David, a leading name-glorifier, in the early 1920s.

5. Fr Panagiotis writes: "In Russia, the most vocal opponent was Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev." This is true, but Fr. Panagiotis gives no indication of just how misguided many of his writings against name-glorification really were. Archbishop Anthony in fact explicitly refuses to recognize the energy of God with God Himself, recognizing it – and consequently the name of God – as only an intermediary power:

His [Bulatovich’s] doctrine consists of the following positions. In God not only His Essence is divine, but His energy as well; the energy is every word of God and every action; the name of God is also His energy (energy means will or power); it follows, according to Bulatovich’s words, that the name of God and every word of God is not only Divine, but is God Himself. This is allegedly the teaching of St. Gregory of Thessalonica. In actual fact the teaching of the latter condemns those who speak in this manner of the first position (and the Barlaamites, the opponents of St. Gregory, spoke in this way) and demands that one name the energy of God not at all "God," but rather Divine and to ascribe to it not the name "God" [Bog] but "Divinity" [Bozhestvenii] or "Divineness" [Bozhestvennost’] (theotis, and not theos). ["Pribavleniia k Tserkovnym Vedomostriam," May 18, 1912 (Number 20), 876].

For Archbishop Anthony, only the essence of God was God Himself, claiming that St. Gregory Palamas directed an anathema against those "who recognize the energy of God not as Divine, but as God, that is, who identify it [the energy] with the essence of God." [Ibid, 876].

Moreover, Vladyka Anthony, in his writings critical of name-glorifying, expressed a crude nominalism, making a strict distinction between a name and the thing or person named:

Logic distinguishes the essence of a thing from its phenomenon (although this, too, is rather vague), and a natural scientist would tell you that sounds are something audible, but that their essence is a vibration of the air and its impact on our eardrums; lightening is a visible phenomenon, but its essence is the release of electrical energy or power.

But what is the difference between a name and the idea or essence of a name? Any educated person would offer the response that the idea of a name is its meaning (for instance, the name "Andrew" contains within itself the idea of manliness, and the name "Agapia," the idea of love), and the essence of the name is understood to be that person to whom it is addressed. But Fr. Bulatovich does not wish to hear of such answers: he is indignant with those who "dare to equate the Divinity of the name of God with the simple idea of God and who see in the name of God nothing but sounds." [Ibid, 878]

The point here is no to criticize Vladyka Anthony, but rather to show that Fr. Panagiotis’ appeal to his authority is specious. The theological limitations of Vladyka Anthony’s writings on name-glorifying should be clearly evident from our very brief summary. Granted the general ignorance of the thought of St. Gregory Palamas in theological circles of his time, there should be nothing especially shocking in his misapprehension of the distinction between essence and energy. None of the other official ecclesiastical replies to name-glorifying was itself free from similar misconstructions of hesychast theology. Vladyka Anthony, for all his attempts to break free from the bondage of western scholasticism, was still very much a theologian of his time. Bishop Photios and Fr. Panagiotis, however, cannot be so easily excused, given the revival of interest in Palamas and the growing body of scholarly literature on name-glorifying.

6. Bishop Photios writes: "In other words, it is sufficient for one to call upon the name of God (even without faith, unconscionably [sic]) and God is obliged to be present with this person through His Grace and to fulfill his petition." This slanderous accusation shows Bishop Photios’ utter ignorance of the writings of Fr. Anthony, who repeatedly and systematically denied any such teaching.

7. Fr Panagiotis writes: "The heresy was continued in Paris where the proponents of the heresy of Sophia, Florensky and Bulgakov also supported the Name-Worshipping heresy." Putting aside the fact that Florensky was never in Paris, this is purely a matter of guilt by association. And while it is true that Florensky was supportive of Fr. Anthony (Bulatovich), Bulgakov was more ambivalent, writing only quite fairly that the "practical application of the prayer of Jesus has naturally led to theological discussion of the name of God and its power, on the meaning of the veneration of the name of God and on its active force. These questions have not yet received solutions having the value of dogma for the whole Church" [The Orthodox Church, tr. by Elizabeth S Cram (London: The Centenary Press, 1935), 171-172]. No one at the St. Serge Institute in Paris was an active proponent of name-glorifying.

More could be written in response to the crude caricature of name-glorifying painted by Bishop Photios and Fr. Panagiotis. But the above seven points should demonstrate just how misguided their attempts are to declare as a heresy a teaching that stands well within the mainstream of patristic doctrine.

Nikolai Stromsky
Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple
November 21 / December 4, 2011

Vertordad # 80, December 4, 2011

On the Barlaamite Heresy of Bishop Photios of Marathon

2011-12-04T11:17:00.000-08:00

On November 28, 2011, the article "The Heresy of Name-Worshipping" by Bishop Photios of Marathon appeared on the official site of the Holy Metropolis of the Genuine Orthodox Church of America (HOTCA); on December 1, 2011, the article "The Name-Worshipping Heresy" by Fr. Panagiotes Carras also appeared on the same site. As a result of these publications, it can be concluded that Bishop Photios of Marathon, by subscribing to the decision of the Russian Synod of 1913, has fallen into the Balaamite heresy and denied the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas that the energy of God is God Himself.

As is well known, the Epistle of the Synod of the Russian Church in 1913, which officially condemned name-glorifying (imiaslavie), not only falsely asserted that St. Gregory Palamas "never called the energy ‘God,’ but taught that it should be called ‘Divine’ (not theos, but theotis)" (an exact citation from the Epistle), but also declared that the energy of God can be called "only divine, but not God, let alone ‘God Himself.’" This is the Barlaamite heresy and a direct contradiction of the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, who wrote: "Every divine power and every energy is God (theos) Himself" (Hagiou Gregoriou tou Palama Syggrammata II [Epistle to John Gavras (Thessalonica, 1966) 340. 12-13].

Moreover, the Epistle of the Russian Synod denied the opinion of the name-glorifiers that icons are holy because on them is inscribed the name of God. This opinion, according to the affirmation of the Epistle, "exposes the untruth of the new dogma," that is, of name-glorifying. In this manner, the compilers of the Epistle, and along with them Bishop Photios, have fallen into the heresy of iconoclasm, going explicitly against the affirmation of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council that icons are sanctified not by any specific prayer, but by the imprinting of the name of God. The Council declared: "Many of those items that we accept as holy do not have a sacred prayer read over them; for they, by their very name, are full of holiness and grace… In the same way, the very image of the life-giving cross, in spite of not having a special prayer for its blessing, is accepted by us as worthy of veneration, and it serves as a sufficient means for us to receive sanctification… The same relates to the icon; by denoting it with a known name, we give honor to its prototype; by kissing it and venerating it with admiration, we receive sanctification." (Sixth Act. "Refutation of the So-Called Definition Insidiously Concocted by a Crowd of the Enemies of Christianity.")

Bishop Photios, as can be seen in his article, considers the name-glorifiers’ assertion that divine grace is present in the inscription of the name of God to be a heresy. Specifically, he cites as false the assertion of the name-glorifiers that "The Grace of God is present in the hearings and the writings of God’s name." In this case, one must ask him: in what way can a name, if God is not present therein – inasmuch as the grace of God is His energy, that is, God Himself – sanctify anything? And if, according to the opinion of Bishop Photios, grace is not present in the name of God, then how is it that Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers teach about the sanctity, power, and activity of the name of God in the Mysteries and in prayer?

One might doubt whether Bishop Photios has a genuine understanding of the teaching of name-glorifying, which he from the very beginning dismisses as being found "most among the Slavic Orthodox." Indeed, can any good thing come from the Slavs (cf. Jn 1:46)?

Hieroschemamonk Anthony (Bulatovich) always denied the accusation that the name-glorifiers worshipped the material letters and sounds of the Divine Names, comparing the material shell of the name to icons inasmuch as divine energy is present in the name of God. St. Theodore the Studite wrote the following about the icon: "one must believe that divine grace enlivens it, that it communicates sanctification to those who approach it with faith" (Epistle to His Spiritual Father, Platon, On the Veneration of Icons). From this it follows that grace is always present in icons, but that it is active only when approached with faith. In this way, Bishop Photios’ accusation that the presence of God in the sounds and letters of the names of God makes Him dependent upon man is shown to be false and groundless. If Bishop Photios were correct, then the presence of divine grace in icons would also make God dependent upon man. Or perhaps Bishop Photios venerates icons in order to receive magical power over God from them?

Bishop Photios’ article also contains slanderous accusations against the righteous Schema-monk Ilarion and his edifying book In the Mountains of the Caucasus. The third edition of this book, which the onomatoclasts (imiabortsy, literally "name-destroyers") attacked, was printed with money donated by the New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth, acting upon the advice of her spiritual father, Elder Herman, founder and abbot of the Zosimova Hermitage. St. Elizabeth, to whom our cathedral is dedicated, did not cease to help the defenders of the name of God until the end of her life. Bishop Photios likewise falsely presents the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II as a supporter of the onomatoclasts. In actual fact, the Tsar-Martyr, having been advised by St. Elizabeth and other spiritual people, ordered the Russian Synod to overturn all the sanctions it had imposed upon the name-glorifiers, so that the name-glorifiers enjoyed unrestricted communion with the rest of the Russian Church until 1918. Documents from the supporters of the onomatoclasts have been preserved from the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 in which they state their joy at the overthrow of the monarchy as a possibility to return the Russian Church to the Synodal Epistle of 1913. By God’s mercy, despite all the machinations of the onomatoclasts, the name-glorifiers were fully reconciled with the Holy Patriarch Tikhon in 1921. The then head of the name-glorifiers in Moscow, Igumen David, concelebrated with Patriarch Tikhon while continuing to teach name-glorifying in the churches of Moscow.

The All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 transferred to its own conciliar competence decisions concerning the essence of the conflict, but was unable to reach any decision, inasmuch as its work was forcibly ended. Therefore, as was decided in 1917, the controversy that arose at that time within the Russian Church should be resolved, if it be the will of God, by a Local Council.

One should not, for reasons of ecclesiastical intrigue, interfere in foreign theological controversies of which one has no understanding.

+Bishop Gregory of Petrograd and Gdov
November 21 / December 4, 2011
Entrance of the Most-Holy Theotokos into the Temple

Epistle of the Conference of Bishops of the ROAC on the 20-th anniversary of the open service of ROCOR parishes in Russia

2010-08-16T03:16:00.000-07:00

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the first open parishes of ROCOR in Russia - or, more precisely, the anniversary of the open service of True Orthodox parishes in our country under the omophorion of bishops who received their canonical apostolic succession from ROCOR. In historical perspective twenty years is a substantial period of time. This is precisely the same interval as between the years 1917 and 1937. Then, the process of the collapse of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church finished its due course, from the beginning to the end, when the True Orthodox Church had completely disappeared from the face of the earth, as it went underground, into the “catacombs”.

In the beginning of this process of destruction of the earthly body of our Local Church, the majority of its hierarchs and leaders renounced their Orthodox Tsar. That was a huge temptation for the entire nation, which had been praying for their Tsar and Royal Family for many centuries. Apart from that, it was also a sign of the moral degradation of the earthly institution of the church, which, with indifference, abandoned him who had been anointed with holy chrism as Tsar by that very same church, together with his family, to the mercy of wild beasts. Not a word in defense of the Royal Martyrs was uttered, neither by the ruling Synod in 1917, nor by the All-Russian Local Church Council. Thus it was futile to hope that the “new” church edifice would be strong, when it was built on treachery, and on the innocent blood of God’s anointed. And the end of the visible legal church life came with the execution of the last three universally acknowledged leaders of the True Church: Patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsy; Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan; and Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd (St. Petersburg). All three were executed by firing squad in 1937.

As then, so now, the middle of the twenty-year period was marked by a catastrophe. We all remember precisely what happened in the year 1927 [the Declaration of Met Sergius (trans.)], but we still do not fully realize what happened in the year 2000. It was then, at the ROCOR Council of 2000 - precisely then, and by no means at the council the next year, in 2001 - when ROCOR had for the first time in many decades confessed itself to be a part of the apostasy of “World Orthodoxy”. It was then, in the “symbolical” year of 2000, that a conciliar letter to the “Patriarch of Serbia” was approved, in which it was implied that the ecumenistic Patriarchate of Serbia is in communion with ROCOR. Moreover, that letter contained an appeal to the “Patriarch of Serbia”, to serve as the go-between in negotiations with Moscow Patriarchate. After that council of apostasy, the forcible and treacherous removal of Metropolitan Vitaly the following year was the logical finale. Just as in the year 1927, the “separation of the sheep from the goats” began not with actions, but with words committed to paper, so, too, did it happen in the year 2000. Also, just as in 1927 this process of separation took many years, so here too we see that the ROCOR Council of 2000 was the beginning of the subsequent division of ROCOR, which in the last ten years has clearly manifested itself, just as separations in the former Russo-Greek Church [the official title of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian empire (trans.)] did by the year 1937.

Today, as in 1937, we still can not drop from our prayers the designation of the Russian Church as a “persecuted” church. Persecutions still continue. Yet, by God’s mercy, the degree of the persecution today is not comparable to that of those early years, and this serves for us present-day Orthodox Christians as both a reproof and a warning. As a reproof - because today, unlike the Orthodox of those times, we do not have such serious causes, which prevented them from organizing their church life. We don’t need such strict measures of secrecy as were necessary then. And as a warning - because we must look back at the Orthodox Christians of 1937 and see what can happen to all of us if we will not make use, right now, of all the blessings of peaceful church life which we currently enjoy.

The chief of these blessings is: “Behold now, what is so good or so joyous as for brethren to dwell together in unity?” (Ps. 132, 1) We are obliged to overcome all the divisions that have arisen among us during the last ten to fifteen years, due to the fact that all of us were more or less affected by the processes of deterioration of ROCOR. And one cannot say that we haven’t done anything in that regard so far. We would like to think that Metropolitan Vitaly, if he were alive today, on the 100th anniversary of his birth, would bless our beginnings, and would rejoice over our initial successes, however humble they might be.

It would be wonderful if all of our bishops from the separated jurisdictions of the formerly united ROCOR could meet with Metropolitan Vitaly today in the city where he was born in 1910, in St. Petersburg. But even if this is not possible physically, then it is still possible to do so spiritually, especially since Metropolitan Vitaly is now freed from all the infirmities which would often impede his full participation in church affairs during his service as ROCOR’s First Hierarch.

So, what has been done up until today, when the tall building of the Church Abroad which seemed so stable and solid in 1990, has collapsed into a pile of “fragments”?

Among Russian Orthodox people a weariness of divisions is manifest today - divisions which are caused, more often than not, by the mistaken activities of bishops. There is also emerging an understanding that there are no deep differences between us. In some cases it becomes apparent that there aren’t really any differences at all, not even small ones. Thus, among the laymen, monastics and clergy of Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) and the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) there is growing a climate of ever warmer and more friendly relations, which are natural for those who are united in the Body of Christ, but which do not necessarily require a unity of administration.

With other “fragments” the process of rapprochement is proceeding more slowly, but steadily. Here we must mention the conference in Odessa, which was called in July of this year by the First Hierarch of ROCOR(A), Metropolitan Agafangel, where, along with members of that part of the Church Abroad, representatives of ROAC also took part. Probably the main result of that conference was the establishing of the fact that, despite a different approach to interpreting certain historical events and confessional documents, we have the same understanding of the Orthodox Faith, and, specifically, that we have no contradictions concerning the dogma of the Church.

Our common faith with respect to the dogma of the Church - in that aspect of this dogma which led to especially numerous debates over the course of the twentieth century - can best be summarized thus. On the one hand, it is not possible to determine the exact moment when a heretical group loses God’s grace, and therefore, even an Ecumenical Council can not play the role of a “switch” for the grace of the Mysteries: the “switch theory”, as it is ironically called, can not be employed under any guise. On the other hand, at no moment in time it is possible to assert with certainty that a group whose bishops have turned from Orthodoxy unto heresy does still retain Divine grace: even if no Council has yet condemned those bishops and their flock; there can be no certainty of their Mysteries retaining any grace. Heresy is such a poison which undoubtedly leads to the spiritual death of the church organism which it affects, unless a spiritual antidote be found. In such an organism the process of dying is progressing, gradually and unevenly, and so no formula can exist which would “predict” its progress, just as there can’t possibly exist an external way of observing and measuring the progress of such a process. Only God, and those who see in Holy Spirit, can make such observations in full detail. For the rest of us, it is sufficient if we understand the nature of the poison and avoid any ecclesiastical communion with groups affected by it.

Probably the most important and common attainment for all the True Orthodox churches in Russia is the awareness of our internal unity - that true unity of the Church. We have practically abandoned our mutual polemics and attacks, and have begun to realize that all the controversial matters can only be properly clarified by dialog. We are no longer so pained by the transfer of some of our clergy and their parishes from one True Orthodox jurisdiction into another, because, in the end, by such transfers no one is falling away from the Church, which is One for all of us, and we have nothing to fight over in this regard.

Let us strive to pray for one another, for each and every pious and truly Orthodox Christian, including those with whom we have not yet officially established communion. Here prayer should precede the official decisions of church authorities.

Entering upon the third decade of the legal existence of the True Orthodox Church in the Russian land, let us give thanks unto all the holy people to whom we today owe our hopes for salvation. Our Church was resurrected not because of political circumstances, nor because of some administrative talents of certain people. She was resurrected because of the struggles of the great host of the New Martyrs of Russia, whose sanctifying blood became the surest witness of the Truth, and the purification for the centuries of servitude of our church before the civil authorities, and its secularization. We must remember and confess, that our Church, regardless of which “fragment” we belong to, is the Church of the New Martyrs, that they are Her glory, they are Her pledge of loyalty to the Truth, until the glorious Second Coming of our Saviour.

The life of every one of us, inseparable from the Church, must be a worthy continuation of their struggles - in prayer, in labor, in being prepared to bear any persecutions, even unto death. For death for Christ’s sake is a great gain, and life for the sake of the world, and for the false church that serves the world, is worse than death. Beholding the New Martyrs, we must be strengthened in our belief that the True Church cannot be destroyed, that we must bear with courage any persecutions, seizures of our temples, slanders and revilings, for the sake of the eternal glory of the Holy Name of our God. And the historical experience of the last twenty years should become for us a lesson and a protection against those errors which led to the historical collapse of the New York Synod and it’s supporters, who followed the wide path taken by Sergius (Stragorodsky). And may this purifying experience make the third decade of the official existence of True Church in the land of Russia the decade of reunion and healing of the wounds on Her incorruptible Body.

Gregory, Bishop of Petrograd and Gdov, Head of the Conference of Bishops of Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church
Sebastian, Bishop of Chelyabinsk
Bishop Amvrosy

St. Petersburg,
July 15/28 2010,
Feast of St. Vladimir the Great Prince, Equal-to-the-Apostles

Open Letter to Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, First-Hierarch of the True Orthodox Church of Greece

2009-11-08T03:15:00.000-08:00

To: His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis)

Makariotate!

Evlogeite!

We are writing to you, first, to ask you to pray for our spiritual father, Hieromonk Akakije, who is seriously ill, and secondly to express our extreme alarm at the crisis situation that has been created in the Church by the Holy Synod’s reversal of its decision to enter into communion with the True Orthodox Church of Russia (RTOC) under Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk.

We have decided to write to you very frankly and directly, without diplomatic expressions. We hope that you will understand that this is not out of disrespect for you, whom we believe to be the true and canonical leader of Greek Orthodoxy. However, when an iceberg aimed by the devil has hit the ship of the Church, and it is lurching heavily to one side, it is too late to put on dinner jackets and make toasts and compliments and witty speeches – we must act in accordance with the gravity of the situation.

When, on September 13/26, the Holy Synod decided that there was no dogmatic or canonical obstacle to union between the True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Russia, and a date for concelebration was set for November 13/26, the feast of your patron, St. John Chrysostom, many Orthodox Christians around the world rejoiced greatly, and we believe that all the Saints in Heaven also rejoiced. Immediately the decision was published in the Russian ecclesiastical press, and Church commentators from other jurisdictions agreed that this was a very important event, perhaps the beginning of the end of the disintegration of True Orthodoxy throughout the world. Imagine the surprise and the bitter disappointment when, only a few days later, the Synod reversed its decision – so far, with not a single official word of explanation or justification! One commentator who had welcomed the original decision said that this new, completely contradictory one proved that the Greek Synod was “out of control”. In our view, this is, tragically, a correct assessment… Another commentator said that now the Russians should stop seeking union with the Greeks. We fervently hope that this will not happen, but we cannot exclude that even more tragic possibility…

On October 12/25 Metropolitan Kallinikos of Corinth came unexpectedly to Serbia and said that the Greek hierarchs were “unanimous” in their decision to stop the unification process. However, everybody knows that the reversal of the original decision was dictated by Metropolitan Kallinikos, and that the majority of the Greek bishops, including yourself, were in favour of union with the Russians, but that you all submitted to the will of Kallinikos for the sake of the internal unity of the Greek Church. He also said in Serbia that the other Greek bishops who had been in favour of union with the Russians were “inexperienced”!!! So Kallinikos is more experienced even than you, Makariotate! We had no idea that he was so old, and had been a leader of the Church for so long!

The metropolitan also said that in their reception of converts the hierarchs of the RTOC followed the practice of the pre-revolutionary Church in Russia. This is not true! It is obvious that he has not read the decisions of the Council of the RTOC which took place in Odessa last year, which already decree a practice that is considerably stricter than that of both the Russian Church before the revolution and the Russian Church Abroad - from which, of course, your Synod derives its apostolic succession. Moreover, we know from Archbishop Tikhon himself when he was in Athens that he firmly accepts the principle that everyone coming to his Church from the Moscow Patriarchate who has not received a canonical baptism must be baptized.

Of course, it is true that some of Archbishop Tikhon’s priests who were received by the Russian Church Abroad have not had canonical baptism. But if Metropolitan Kallinikos is insisting that these priests must be baptized before he can enter into communion with Archbishop Tikhon, then we would like to ask him the following questions:

1, What right does he have, according to the Holy Canons, to dictate to bishops of another Local Church how and when they should practice akriveia or oikonomia? We believe he has no such right.

2. Will he now break communion with the Bulgarian priest of our Synod, Fr. Ioann Vasilevsky, who has never received a canonical baptism, and with another Bulgarian priest of our Synod, Fr. Martin, who was baptized by an “unbaptized” priest (Fr. Ioann)? If he will not break communion with them, then we consider his refusal to be in communion with the True Orthodox Russians to be hypocritical.

3. Will he now accept that both he and all the bishops of the True Orthodox Church of Greece received their apostolic succession from an uncanonical Church, the Russian Church Abroad, because the Russian Church Abroad contained many priests, and even bishops, who had not received canonical baptism? If he does not accept this, then again he is being hypocritical.

Makariotate!

We believe that if you do not resist the “zeal without knowledge” of Metropolitan Kallinikos, there will be very wide and very serious implications both for True Orthodoxy as a whole and for the credibility and canonicity of the True Orthodox Church of Greece in particular, for the following reasons:

a. The present situation is humiliating for you personally, and detrimental for the whole structure of synodical government in the Church. According to Apostolic Canon 34, the bishops of every nation must have a head, an archbishop, and the archbishop must confer with the other bishops, and the other bishops must confer with the archbishop. “For in this way there will be unanimity and God will be glorified”. However, we now see that there is a second head of the Synod, Metropolitan Kallinikos, and that he is more powerful than you. He overrules the opinions of the other bishops, whom he calls “inexperienced”, and then proclaims the lie that they all agree with him. This situation was perhaps not well known outside of Greece before, but now the whole world knows it. If you are to restore the credibility of your Synod, and of your personal position as head of the Synod, then it is necessary to put Kallinikos in his place. In any case, what have you gained by surrendering to Kallinikos’ blackmail? You have certainly not gained the support of our American bishops and clergy, who are furious – but whose excellent letter of protest has been suppressed for diplomatic reasons. You have certainly not gained the support of your West European and Serbian flock, who are very isolated and need the communion of the True Russian Orthodox. And you have alienated the best representatives of the great Russian Church and nation, which provided you with your apostolic succession. What a terrible price you have paid already! And this is only the beginning…

b. Formally speaking, if you refuse to be in communion with the Russian True Orthodox Church, you place yourselves in a schismatic situation in relation to the Church of Russia. Bishop Photius has already thoroughly examined the dogmatic and canonical situation of the RTOC, and has come to the conclusion that they are Orthodox. We believe that this conclusion is correct, and that your decision (as we have heard) to make a further review of their canonical status is simply “excuse for excuses in sin” – an attempt to cover up a lack of love for the Russian Orthodox, and fear of the threats of Metropolitan Kallinikos, with the fig-leaf of canonical rectitude. Since, as we have heard, many of the bishops have not even read Bishop Photius’ 40-page report, why should another report bring any more enlightenment? And why should another report by another man be any better, since Bishop Photius, we are convinced, knows more about Russian Orthodoxy than anybody else in the Synod? Therefore if you refuse to be in communion with the True Russian Church, you place yourselves in schism from it. This will weaken your authority throughout the Orthodox world.

c. Although your Synod’s decision has publicly hurt and humiliated the hierarchs of the RTOC, and through them the whole of Russian Orthodoxy, we are not sorry for them, because we know that they have acted for the sake of the Unity of the Church, in truth and love, and so God will not abandon them. But what will happen to you? In the seventeenth century the Russian Old Believer schism was created because the schismatics did not want to be in union with the Greek Orthodox, suspecting that they were still heretics and their rites incorrect. Are you not now repeating the same mistake in relation to the Russian Orthodox? We know that Metropolitan Kallinikos has already for several years been a “Greek Old Believer”, a phyletist and an enemy of the Slavic Orthodox. We know this because he wrote this in “Themata Pisteos: Orthodoxoi kai Ellines”, volume 1, nos. 4-5, July-October, 1994: the Slavs – unlike the Greeks, who believe “first in Christ, then in Greece” – believe “first in their fatherland, and afterwards in Christ”. And so, he continues, the Slavic peoples “… have used Orthodoxy as a means for the realization of their national interests. This means that they were never good Orthodox… Such are the various people of Slavic descent, as are, above all, the Russians” (pp. 57-58, 60). This terrible attack on Slavic Orthodoxy and the Slavic saints was never punished by your Synod. And now you are reaping the fruits of that refusal to correct Kallinikos: he has destroyed the union between Greek and Russian True Orthodoxy – unless you act now to restore canonical order and uphold the Unity and Catholicity of the Church…

Finally, we should like to place some questions before the whole of the Holy Synod. Both of us have already received communion in the Russian True Orthodox Church, with the full knowledge and blessing of hierarchs of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, and we know that the American bishops allow intercommunion with the Russian True Orthodox in America. But Bishop Photius has announced in Serbia that the Holy Synod has now decided to forbid communion with the Russian True Orthodox Church. In view of this, we wish to ask the Holy Synod: does the True Orthodox Church of Russia have the grace of sacraments? If not, when did it cease to have that grace? If, on the other hand, it is agreed that the Russian True Orthodox Church does still have that grace, what right has anybody to order us to break communion with our brothers and sisters in the Russian Church to whom Christ continues to give His Most Holy Body and Blood?

Asking for your holy prayers,

With love in Christ,
Schema-Nun Euphrosinija, superior of the convent of Novostjenik, Serbia.
Reader Vladimir Moss

A Member of the Holy Synod of the MP States that his Church Recognizes Roman Catholic Mysteries

2009-10-21T03:11:00.000-07:00

“To all intent and purposes, mutual recognition of each others Mysteries already exists between us. We do not have communion in the Mysteries, but we do recognize each others Mysteries”, declared Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) on the air during a broadcast of the program “The Church and the World” on the television channel “Russia”, on October 17th (video and text).

“If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”, explained Archbishop Hilarion.

Responding to the question of whether Roman Catholics can receive Communion from the Orthodox, or Orthodox Christians from the Roman Catholics, Archbishop Hilarion said that such giving of Communion should not take place, inasmuch as “eucharistic communion has been broken” between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. But, at the same time, he made clear that in some cases such Communion is possible: "Exceptional cases occur, when, for example, a Roman Catholic is dying in some town where there is no Roman Catholic priest at all in the vicinity. So he asks an Orthodox priest to come. Then in such a case, I think, the Orthodox priest should go and give Communion to that person."

Archbishop of Volokolamsk, Vicar of the Patriarch of Moscow, is the Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations, and a Permanent Member of the Holy Synod of the MP. Archbishop Hilarion is a member of the Executive and Central Committees of the World Council of Churches, of the Presidium of ‘Faith and Order’ Commission, as well as of numerous bilateral theological dialogues. In 1998 he headed the 5-member Moscow Patriarchate delegation to the 8th WCC Assembly in Harare, and in February 2006 headed the Moscow Patriarchate's 21-member delegation to the 9th Assembly in Porto-Alegre. Bishop Hilarion is a permanent member of the Joint International Commissions for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church, between the Orthodox Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

On the Lesser Sobors

2008-10-09T10:45:00.001-07:00

The current situation within the True Russian Orthodox Churches [separate fragments of ROCOR, each with its Lesser Sobor of bishops] can exist in the Church only temporarily, for as long as the historical circumstances which caused it continue. In our times such circumstances were the unprecedented persecution of the Church, the liquidation of her lawful leadership, the departure into the catacombs and abroad, the autonomization of the dioceses and parishes, the rise of a seductive surrogate for the Church in the form of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the global triumph of the heresy of ecumenism. At the present time those historical circumstances which made impossible the restoration of the structure of our Local Church have disappeared or grown weak, thus the former "atomized" state can no longer be tolerated or justified. The basis for a dialogue of the Lesser Sobors is a common canonical evaluation of the ecclesiastical situation which has arisen since the collapse of the ROCOR.

This organ, the Lesser Sobor, in the language of canon law, may be called a temporary assembly of bishops (ayroisma — according to the eighty-seventh canon of the Council of Carthage [That is, No. 87 in the Slavonic/Russian editions of the Rudder, which corresponds to No. 79 in the Greek enumeration, and to No.76 in the Latin and English]). Similar examples are also known in the earlier history of the Church, such as the epoch of the temporary disintegration of the Byzantine Empire after the capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in the thirteenth century. In the various self-governing parts of the empire several Lesser Sobors of bishops were formed, which became the temporary Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority for each of those parts of the empire.

Address of Bishop Sebastian of Chelyabinsk and the Provisional Ecclesiastical Council of the ROAC

2008-10-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

To the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

(Moscow, June 2/15, 2008: Holy Pentecost)

To the Most-reverend Vladimir, Bishop of San Francisco and Western America,
To the Most-reverend Anastasy, Bishop of Vladivostok and the Far East:

"Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind." (Philippians, 2: 2)

Your Graces, dear Archpastors of the faithful remnant of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad!

The Epistle of March 27/April 9 of this year by the Bishops' Sobor of your holy Church evoked in us great joy and inspiration. Represented by a multitude of self-governing "fragments", the Russian Church, linked by its origin and traditions with the ROCA of the beginning of the 1990s, is finally starting to feel keenly the unnatural and destructive nature of its disunited state. The "atomization" of those jurisdictions which had come forth from the single root of the ROCA, having turned into some sort of evil, unending process, renders impossible, even "technically", the survival of each one of them individually. For some of these jurisdictions have only two bishops left, while others have even less. But the chief thing is that our witness to the outside world, to our fellow-countrymen, concerning True Orthodoxy, loses its salt when we appear before the face of that world as continually fragmentizing — and moreover, not for matters of faith or of a dogmatic nature, but for petty, often exclusively emotional, quibbles.

One is given the impression that — under the circumstances of the persecution of True Orthodoxy in Russia and in several other countries — our persecutors themselves have come to recognize that the path of "natural extinction" of our Church by means of its endless fragmentization is the most effective means of destroying us. Glory be to God, that after many years of confusion and crisis, for the first time there has appeared the possibility of halting this fragmentization.

Your Epistle contains a clear appeal to all the clergymen and laity who have preserved their loyalty to Holy Orthodoxy and to the principles of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

" to unite around our Synod of Bishops and your own archpastors, to continue the saving path of our predecessors, and, while offering repentance for our sins, which we are called to do by the Orthodox Church during these days of the Great Fast, uncondemned to attain unto the Radiant Resurrection of Christ and the gory of God".

Our ecclesiastical community, being linked historically and spiritually with the "pre-schism" ROCA, has preserved totally unblemished holy Orthodoxy and our faithfulness to the spiritual principles of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the epoch of her great Fathers and hierarchs — first among them, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) — glorified as a saint by the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in 2001 — whose presence among the assembly of the saints is now also recognized by your Holy Synod. Therefore our Lesser Sobor of faithful True Orthodox Christians of the Russian Church cannot but respond to your long-awaited appeal to restore our former unity.

The history of our division is linked to those lamentable processes which presently have brought a considerable part of the ROCA to its spiritual death — into the clutches of the heretical Moscow Patriarchate. From the very first days of the re-establishment of legal, open parishes of the Russian Church in the homeland, united by the fraternal aid of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCA in 1990 into a special ecclesiastical association called "The Free Russian Orthodox Church", our hierarchs, clergymen, and communities experienced difficulties in communicating with the ecclesiastical administrative organs abroad. The contradictory instructions emanating from there, the activities of various sorts of ecclesiastical adventurists — sometimes in the rank of "Synodal Representatives" in Russia, inflicted irreparable damage to our church life and led to the abolition of many communities and even of entire dioceses. Russian Orthodox people who had sacrificed a great deal in order to remain faithful to True Orthodoxy, having entered into an uneven battle with the Moscow Patriarchate and the repressive government apparatus supporting her, constantly felt themselves to have been betrayed and deceived by their own archpastors abroad. All this was crowned by the expected outcome: the casting aside of the sheep's clothing and the capitulation by these so-called archpastors before the ecumenistic pseudo-church which they themselves had hypocritically anathematized. As you well know, the first, overt steps on the path to this capitulation were taken in 1993 in the German diocese of the ROCA, where began the official discussions with the "parallel" diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate. At the same time, canonically baseless "interdicts" rained down upon the hierarchs within Russia — on Archbishop Lazar and on Bishops Benjamin, and Valentin — which sought to paralyze the life of the Russian parishes. The hierarchs within Russia found that the sole means to halt the ensuing disorganization of their dioceses was to terminate their voluntary administrative subordination to the ROCA, and to temporarily become self-governing. This, at that time, inevitable step — or rather, the actions of Archbishop Mark and the ROCA administration dependant upon him — led to the first lamentable division among the children of our Church in Russia, who were of one mind concerning matters of faith.

Before long this administrative division unexpectedly assumed a canonical, and even dogmatic, basis. The 1994 Bishops' Sobor of the ROCA, having "condemned" the bishops of the Free Russian Orthodox Church, entered into communion with a dubious group of Greek Old-calendarists calling themselves "The Synod in Resistance". This step — unexpected by the majority of the members of the Church Abroad — was directed, as later became clear, at gradually preparing the consciousness of the clergy and laity of the ROCA to accept the heresy of ecumenism and the idea that subordination to the Moscow Patriarchate was possible. After all, the Bishop's Sobor of the ROCA had solemnly declared its own teaching to be identical to the ecclesiology of the "Synod in Resistance" of Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas), which absolutely recognizes the mysteries of the heretical ecumenists to be grace-filled and salvific, and which, moreover, declares itself to be found in "the one Church" with those heretics. And yet, the ROCA Sobor — in a manner most paradoxical — abrogated neither its own anathema of 1983 against ecumenism and all those who have communion with ecumenists, nor the decisions of the Sobors of 1968–1973 concerning communion with the True Orthodox Greek Old-calendarists: the "Chrysostomites" and the "Matthewites", who have rejected the heresy of Cyprian.

At the end of 1994 an attempt was made — on very tenuous, and compromising conditions — to re-establish administrative unity between the ROCA Synod and the Free Russian Orthodox Church. But the differences in doctrine and view of prospects for church life were already great. In addition, a loyal assistant of Archbishop Mark made his appearance among the episcopate of the ROCA, who has presently been rewarded with the post of vicar bishop of Patriarch Alexis II, Bishop Evtikhy, who, having arrived in Suzdal in January of 1995, spared no efforts to repair the division. That attempt to re-establish communion with the group of Archbishops Laurus and Mark, who were preaching Cyprianism and who were striving for union with the MP, is now seen by our Lesser Sobor to have been a serious mistake, of which we have repented.

As the day of the capitulation of the Laurus-Mark part of the ROCA before the Moscow Patriarchate drew nigh, the number of hierarchs, clergymen and laity — historically and spiritually linked to the Church Abroad — whose eyes were opened to the perniciousness of the path along which their ecclesiastical leaders sought to take them, began to grow. In connection with that, new "fragments" of the ROCA appeared in 1996, in 1997, in 2000, in 2001, in 2006, and finally in 2007, when the process of apostasy from Orthodoxy was brought to completion. Many members of the Church Abroad left the Russian tradition and joined various Greek Old-calendarist groups. To a certain degree, these too can be considered "fragments" of our Church.

Analyzing the causes of the catastrophe which has occurred, the majority of our "fragments" came to the conclusion that the deceptive doctrine of Metropolitan Cyprian concerning the unity of the True Orthodox and the ecumenists, and that the latter have still not fallen away from the Church, inevitably leads to the recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate and subordination to her. For us it was very heartening to learn that the Bishops' Sobor of your Church had condemned the heresy of Cyprianism in 2002, and by this very act had abrogated the corresponding acts of the ROCA from 1994 to 2001.

Following the intensified persecution of our Church from 2002 to 2008, the rigid, hierarchial ecclesiastical governance within the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (such was the Free Russian Orthodox Church renamed at the insistence of the state officials when our church organization was re-registered in 1998) ceased to exist. From the point of view of canon law, such a vertical chain of command did not exist even prior to 2002, inasmuch as the unification of bishops into a Provisional Ecclesiastical District (a Lesser Sobor), in the event of the abolition of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, is voluntary, and the temporary ecclesiastical administration formed by them does not seek to replace the lawful Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, nor does it take upon itself the latter's plenary powers. After 2002, when, owing to various circumstances, the senior-ranking (according to consecration) hierarch of our Lesser Sobor, Metropolitan Valentin, considered it possible to make a series of uncanonical decisions, including ones which exceeded the authority of a provisional Synod of a Lesser Sobor, then there began the process of administrative isolation on the part of the bishops of the ROAC. In 2004, at the initiative of Metropolitan Valentin himself, Archbishop Gregory (Abu-Assaly [of Denver]) ceased to be in administrative subordination to the Suzdal Synod; in 2006 the author of this present epistle, Bishop Sebastian, was compelled to take the same action, and this year Bishop Amvrosy (Epiphanov) did likewise. For all intent and purposes, the Catacomb hierarchs — Archbishops Seraphim and Anthony — are totally self-governing. However, the present position of these hierarchs, including the author of these lines, has not led to new church schisms, as, unfortunately, it is still the practice in several "fragments", but it is a purely administrative measure, undertaken in the expectation that any questionable actions will be examined by the future lawful Sobor of our Local Church. And most importantly, it has not led to a severing of canonical communion between the bishops, clergy, and laity of the ROAC; therefore all of us, with good reason, remain spiritual children of the ROAC. Such is not only our canonical, but also our official, legal status. More detailed information concerning the structure of our Lesser Sobor can be found in the Memorandum which we have attached to this Address.

For us it was very important to see that your Bishops' Sobor in April corrected the imbalance — formerly characteristic of the Church Abroad — between the dioceses and parishes abroad and those within Russia, where the latter were perceived as being "in subordination" to the former, and possessed curtailed rights. The establishment of a Eurasian Ecclesiastical District with its center in Russia, which unites the absolute majority of the parishes of your Church, indicates a wide autonomy for the Russian parishes within the body of a single ecclesiastical-administrative structure. Our own Church is also organized according to the principle of autonomous ecclesiastical districts (Lesser Sobors) which unite several dioceses and bishops. Moreover, as you can see from our fundamental documents attached to this Address, we consider such a principle of ecclesiastical organization to be the sole, viable one amidst the conditions of persecution, right up until the convoking of a Pan-Russian Local Sobor and the re-establishment of the full canonical structure of our Church. Obviously this principle of the autonomy of each Lesser Sobor is likewise the only possible one applicable to our further unification with other "fragments" of the ROCA, who are of one mind with us in matters of faith.

And so, on behalf of our Lesser Sobor of the ROAC, we propose that we re-establish canonical communion between us, based on those principles which existed prior to 1994. Our common rejection of the heresy of Cyprianism — which served as the cause of the division in 1994 — together with our common confession of the Orthodox Faith, serve as the dogmatic basis for such a restoration of communion. The historical-canonical basis for such a restoration of communion is our common descent from the historical ROCA, the common rootstock of our episcopate, our belonging to the general Russian True Orthodox tradition, and what is more — to that part of her which is linked to the spiritual heritage of the Russian Church Abroad. In conformity with canon law, our Lesser Sobor may preserve its internal structure and self-government, and likewise the temporary, extraterritorial state of its dioceses. At the same time, we imagine a joint Bishops' Sobor as the higher body of ecclesiastical authority in our unified ecclesiastical association. Of course, in the event that the process of "gathering the remnants" progresses favorably, a transition to a territorial demarcation of all dioceses cannot be ruled out. However, we perceive that the full implementation of that principle in all its strictness will be difficult prior to the convoking of the Pan-Russian Local Sobor and the restoration of the lawful organs of a Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration on the scale of our entire Local Russian Church.

In conclusion, permit me once again to thank you for the Appeal — inspired by the Holy Spirit — of your Sacred Sobor for the restoration of canonical communion among the "fragments" of the ROCA, and to express our hope that our response to that appeal will be received with fraternal consideration and love, and may they cover our former differences and misunderstandings, so that nothing human or worldly should hinder us from glorifying and hymning with one mouth and one heart the One God magnified in Trinity. Amen!

+ Humble Sebastian,
Bishop of Chelyabinsk

The Provisional Ecclesiastical Council of the ROAC

Secretary,
Xenia, nun

Moscow, June 2/15, 2008 — Holy Pentecost

Attachments [from Bp. Sebastian, for the ROCA-V]:

1) Appeal of the Provisional Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church: To All the True Orthodox Christians of the Russian Tradition — In Connection with the Falling Away of the ROCOR-Laurus
(Bezhetsk, Russia, May 17, 2007)

2) Memorandum on the state of the Provisional Ecclesiastical Council of the ROAC and the other communities and clergymen found under the omophorion of His Grace, Bishop Sebastian

Hierarchs of World Orthodoxy Participated Ecumenical Services in Armenia

2008-09-30T11:12:00.000-07:00

(Blagovest-Info – Vertograd, Yerevan /Armenia/)

Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (Ecumenical Patriarchate), Metropolitan Valentine of Orenburg and Buzuluk (Moscow Patriarchate) and representatives of eleven more "sister-churches" accompanied Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II in blessing the Chrism for Armenian Apostolic Church in Etchmiadzin on September 28.

Armenian Apostolic Church uses two relics to bless the Chrism: the Right Hand of St. Gregory, the Enlightener of Armenia, and Holy Spear of Crucifixion. During the ceremony of blessing the Chrism, the Right Hand of St. Gregory was used by Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II (Monophysites), and the Holy Spear was given to Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople (World Orthodoxy).

The following Church leaders and representatives participated the ceremony: Metropolitan Valentine of the Diocese of Orenburg and Buzuluk, of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate; Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, who led the delegation for the Roman Catholic Church; His Bishop Benjamin of Menoufeya from the Coptic Orthodox Church; Metropolitan Mor Eustathius Matta Roham of Jazirah and Euphrates of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East; H.G. Dr. Thomas Mar Athanasios, Metropolitan of the Chengannur Diocese who led the delegation of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of India; Geoffrey Rowell, Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe of the Anglican Church, Mgr. Vartan Ashkarian, General Representative of the Patriarchal Eparchy of the Armenian Catholic Church; Father Yeghia Kilaghbian, Abbot of the Armenian Mkhitarist Congregation of San Lazzaro; as well as representeatives from the World Council of Churches, and the organization "World Conference of Religions for Peace".

The day before (on September 28) the same members of "sister-churches" presided by Garegin II served a memorial service for the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Prior to the start of the service, a wreath was laid at the memorial. During the service the participants offered joint prayers in their own languages for the victims of the Genocide. Following the service, members of the delegations visited the Genocide Museum.

(Photo by Nowosti-Armenia)

St John of San-Francisco Can Be Appointed Patron of the Branch Of The KGB Of Russian Federation

2008-09-26T11:11:00.000-07:00

The Union of Orthodox Citizens of Russia suggested to appoint St John of San-Francisco patron of Intelligence Service of Russian Federation. Their official statement was published on September 25 by "Interfax-Religion", the edition unofficially affiliated with the Department of External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate. It sounds like a mockery, considering the attitude of St.John to KGB and his actions to save Russian people in China from the Soviets.

The modern Intelligence Service of Russia was formed in 1991 after KGB was divided into two branches. On of the branches is Intelligence Service of Russian Federation, another one is presently called FSB (Federal Service of [State] Security). St Alexander Nevsky was suggested as patron of FSB.

ROAC May Loose 14 Church Buildings in Suzdal Region Soon

2008-08-04T11:08:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, Suzdal)

Court is in session concerning the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) serving in 14 church buildings in the Suzdal region. The Governmental Property Agency presented to the court the argument that these church buildings cannot be used by ROAC anymore because the agreement was signed with another organization: Free Russian Orthodox Church (FROC). In fact, FROC is the old name of ROAC. The name was changed in 1998 during the re-registration at the request of the Administration of Justice.

The ROAC is a direct successor of the FROC, but the court insists that the new name was given to another organization. So, most probably the 14 churches will be taken over from ROAC. In this case, the official "competition" will be announced and the parish of any church will be able to apply for the properties. It is easy to predict that the "official" church (Moscow Patriarchate) will get them.

The churches are: St. Constantine the Great Cathedral (built in 1707), Joy of All Who Sorrow (1750 г.), Dormition (17th century), St. Lazar (1667), Holy Cross and St. Nicholas, (1770), Epiphany (1781), St. John the Forerunner (1739г.), St. Cosmas and St. Damian (1725г.) in Suzdal; Church of St. Archdeacon Steven (1780 г.) with the bell-tower (18th century.) and the fence with Holy Gates (18th century) in the village of Kideksha, St. Antipas (1745), Church of Tihkvin Icon of Mother of God (17th century) and the Church of Resurrection (17th century) in the village of Novoselki.

Moscow Patriarchate is Trying to Institute Legal Proceedings against Bishop Diomid Who Was Speaking against Ecumenism

2008-07-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

(Lenta.Ru — Vertograd, Anadyr)

Bishop Mark of Moscow Patriarchate who was appointed as a temporary head of Chukotka Diocese is trying to put criminal liability to the former ruler of that Diocese Bishop Diomid, who spoke openly against a number of violations of the hierarchy of Moscow Patriarchate. So, Moscow Patriarchate is violating the cannon that prohibits to sue church members to settle the interchurch matters.

Bishop Mark condemns Bishop Diomid of stealing all the documents of the dioceses including the accounting and tax documentation. "According to the modest estimation the general amount of income that was not registered equals not less than 8 to 10 million rubles per year only for one church building in Anadyr," Archbishop Mark says. So, Archbishop Mark condemns Bishop Diomid of stealing about 1000 dollars from only one parish everyday. That is completely impossible because Chukotka Diocese is one of the poorest in Moscow Patriarchate and it was hardly making this amount in several months.

Archbishop Mark has also reported about the "felony" to the Regional Representative of the President Oleg Safonov who asked the police "to investigate this information by the most detailed way."

Moscow Patriarchate is definitely trying to imprison Bishop Diomid or at least to keep him confined to his distant region, far away from the main population. They are purposely avoiding addressing the questions of ecumenism, etc. that he raised.

Some of the hierarchs of ROCOR MP abstained from defrocking bishop Diomid of Moscow Patriarchate

2008-06-29T06:58:00.000-07:00

(Official Web-Site of MP – Vertograd, Moscow)

Metropolitan Hilarion, the First-Hierarch of ROCOR MP, abstained from defrocking of anti-ecumenical Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka, Moscow Patriarchate.

Bishop Diomid was known for his criticism of the leadership of Moscow Patriarchate for their contacts with the state and for their ecumenical activity. Bishop Diomid was supported by simple people of MP, it caused anxiety Metropolitan Kirill Gundyaev, Bishop Hilarion Alfeev and a number of other MP hierarchs known as ecumenists.

MP took two controversial decisions again Bishop Diomid at the Sobor of Bishops on June 27 and at the Synod of Bishops on June 28.

The Sobor of Bishops of MP stated that "Bishop Diomid is defrocked for his slanders and lies against the hierarchy".

The decision was taken by a vote of several hundreds in favor, three against, and at least two abstentions. Abstained were Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR MP and Archbisop Sergy of Ternopol at the Ukraine. Against were Bishop Pitirim of Syktyvkar and Vorkuta, Bishop Theodore of Kamenetsk-Podolsk and Bishop Vladimir of Pochaev. Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany and the rest of the hierarchs of ROCOR MP voted for defrocking Bishop Diomid.

This decision is anti-canonical because was no court, Bishop Diomid was not even invited for any court, and there was no investigation of his case. Besides the decision of the Synod has some other strange points. It says (in point 5 of the text) that the defrocking comes into force if Bishop Diomod refuses to repent for his activity during the next session of the Synod of Bishops.

The Synod of Bishops of MP took place next day, June 28. It decided that "Bishop Diomid of Anadyr and Chukotka is removed from rule of the diocese of Anadyr, and suspended from sacred functions".

Prohibition of Prayers "With So-Called Heretics" Does Not Work in "Modern Inter-Christian Situation", Metropolitan Kirill (Gundiaev) Believes

2007-11-27T12:33:00.000-08:00

(Blagovest-Info – Vertograd, Moscow)

Metropolitan Kirill (Gundiaev) of Smolensk (Moscow Partiarchate) gave his interpretation of the canon that prohibits any joint prayers with the non-Orthodox, speaking at the round-table discussion "Practical aspects of Orthodox Sacramentology" within the 5 th International Theological Conference of Moscow Patriarchate on November 16.

Metropolitan Kirill believes that the canon that prohibits any prayers "with so-called heretics" is a "very important canon that on no account can be reduced or removed from the agenda". Metropolitan explained that the main aim of this canon is "to prevent the destruction of Church". "The aim of that canon is to avoid the mimicry. The schism always tries to present itself as a Church, and when people pray together, it gives the illusion of unity". This canon have not lost its importance up till our days, for example, it "completely works toward the schismatics at the Ukraine"

But according to Metropolitan Kirill, this canon "does not work" in "modern inter-Christian situation", because this situation is not dangerous for the unity of Church. "For example the relations between Orthodox and Catholic Churches, or between Orthodox and Protestant Churches at the level of international organizations are not dangerous in this sense, because no mimicry is possible here. In our days there is no danger that common prayer, for example common prayer 'Our Father' (I am not speaking about common service) will undermine the union of church. That is why people come together and say: 'Let us pray together', not in order to mislead anybody and tear away parishioners, but in order to pray together for our sins, for the fact that we are still divided", -- Metropolitan Kirill explained.

Metropolitan Kirill emphasized that he supports "a very strict fulfillment" of this canon "in those situations that caused the formulation of that canon, namely when it is important to protect the unity of the local Christian communion". For that reason Metropolitan Kirill "strongly objects the prayers with the current schismatics at the Ukraine, because this is really a mimicry that will destroy the unity of Church". However he finds "acceptable" joint prayers with non-Orthodox when the situation is not dangerous for the unity of Church.

Metropolitan Kirill added that common prayers with the non-Orthodox are possible for Orthodox people "only with the blessing of the Hierarchy". In this statement Metropolitan Kirill follows the heretical decision of the Sobor of Moscow Patriarchate that stated in 1994 the possibility of joint prayers with the non-Orthodox if the ruling bishop blesses it.

Lamians Ordained a Bishop for Russia

2007-11-01T23:49:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, St-Petersburg)

Archimandret Nectarius (Yashunsky) from St-Petersburg was ordained as Bishop of Olympus on October 12/25 in Athens. The ordination was performed by the head of the Lamians Archbishop Makarios of Athens and all Greece, with Metropolitan Kallinikos of Fthiotidos and Thavmakou, Metropolitan Euthyimios of Salonica, Metropolitan Christophoros of Mesogeas and Islands and Metropolitan Athanasios of Acharnon and N.Ionias.

Bishop Nectarius (Roman Yashunsly in the world) was born in 1966. He graduated from the college of waiters and worked as a waiter in the restaurants of Leningrad (St.-Petersburg). Then he taught himself theology, he is known as an author of a number of theological articles and translations from Greek and English.

He was ordained to priesthood in the Synod of Abp Chrysostomos, hater he condemned that church in heresy and left to Lamians in 1999. In the same year he was deposed by Abp Chrysostomos of Athens.

A newly-ordained bishop Nectarius of Olympus was appointed as a Chancellor of the parishes of this church in Russia and Eastern Europe. In fact the Lamians have only two big parishes in Russia: a parish of Bishop Nectarius in St.Petersburg and a parish in the city of Voronezh where priest Oleg Mironov serves. Besides the Lamians have about three small parishes in Russia.

Most probably Bishop Nectarius together with Metropolitan Philaret of France will break from this Synod within next year or two to form the church of their own.

Letter from the Cyprianites to Bishop Agafangel of Odessa

2007-11-01T22:53:00.000-07:00

No. 452
To: His Eminence
Most Reverend Agafangel
Bishop of Odessa and Taurida
Odessa , Ukraine

From: Fili, Attica, Greece
October 12, 2007 (Church Calendar)
+Sts.Philip the Apostle or Deacon
and St. Theophanes the Confessor

Your Eminence,
dear brother in Christ,
Bishop of Odessa and Taurida, Agafangel!

I greet you with a sacred kiss, love, peace and oneness in the Holy Spirit, while offering your Eminence the sincere feelings of deep respect of our honorable Hierarch and Metropolitan Cyprian and the Most Reverend Bishops of the Holy Synod of Resistance.

I hasten as the Deputy Chairman – an appointment given to me with the love and trust of our Hierarchy through a resolution made at its recent regular Session (34/4.10.2007) – to inform your Eminence of synodal resolutions accepted at this Session (accepted, by the way, unanimously) regarding our ecclesiastical relationship with you ( Resolution 7).

"It was unanimously decreed, that after the union of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad under Metropolitan Lavr with the Moscow Patriarchate, to continue the association of our Holy Synod with the Most Reverend Agafangel, Bishop of Odessa and Taurida, who did not give his consent to this union and broke off his relationship with the Synod of Bishops of Met. Lavr.

Our association with the Most Reverend Agafangel is ongoing and was never interrupted; it will continue and be active in the future as well; we will participate in ordinations of bishops, if we are asked, to strengthen his jurisdiction; we will invite Most Reverend Agafangel to Greece at the first possible opportunity to declare our association with him through an official synodal meeting and to sign the "Act of fundamental principles of our joint activities"; our simultaneous relationship with the Synod of Archbishop of Omsk and Siberia, Tikhon, (in Russia) is not possible, as he is not in communion with the Most Reverend Agafangel."

In accordance with this Resolution and with great gladness, we invite your Eminence to come to Greece for the approval and establishment of our unity in Christ and our joint efforts towards the ensuing challenges.

We earnestly ask that you schedule your visit after November 9/19, because after that date, the Most Reverend Bishop Ambrose of Methone will be with us after two trips abroad.

We ask you, holy Bishop, to accept our assurance of the deep respect and love in Christ we have for you personally and our brotherly greetings.

Least among us in Christ
Deputy Chairman
+Bishop Cyprian of Oreon
Secretary
+Bishop Clement of Gardiki

On the 10-th anniversary of Martyric Death of Protopriest Alexander Zharkov (+ Sep 14, 1997)

2007-10-04T22:48:00.000-07:00

The Teachings of Father Alexander Zharkov

From the Unpublished book by Nun Kassia (Senina),
The Passion-Bearer of the Last Times .

Batiushka did not like to speak in many words. He answered questions very simply, almost always briefly, but to the essence of the matter. I have preserved several of his teachings that I recorded while I was under his spiritual direction. One can judge the man himself by these teachings, for he never taught what he himself did not practice.

When the soul feels well, one wants to pray a great deal, yes; but when one is depressed, one needs to pray more than ever.

Every prayer must be above all with humility.

The Jesus Prayer is not for dreaming about attaining some "height"; it is our holy obligation. One can say it whenever one has free time – while walking, while taking public transport, etc.

The main rule of the spiritual life is that everything must be done secretly. Don't do or say anything for display. Otherwise you're already playing for an audience.

During church services one needn't say the Jesus Prayer, but only listen to the service. One can say the Jesus Prayer only when the commemoration sheets are being read.

It seems that you want the Heavenly Kingdom be brought to you on a platter. But don't think that this happens. The Heavenly Kingdom is not given like a present. Have you read The Apocalypse? "You are neither cold nor hot…" Either be an unbeliever, or be a believer – in which case you need to be hot, not warm. Either one or the other, but by no means "in between."

It's hard? What did you think? For the more one prays, the more temptations one has. Endure. In no case stop praying. Our enemy uses all his power to try to lead us away from prayer and from the Church. Struggle and falls will last to the end of one's life. But there is no other path.

As long as a person doesn't pray, go to Church, or wear a cross, the enemy doesn't approach him: he's already "his," so why tempt him? But as soon as a person begins to pray, to fast – then the enemy right away goes after him to drag from prayer and from the Church.

One must ascend on high gradually, step by step. It's difficult to break with one's old life. One should first break with one thing, then with another, and so on. That's surer than suddenly jumping upwards, but each time falling back to where one began.

Everything must be gradual in the spiritual life; but to ascend the stairs doesn't at all mean to weaken, it means to take oneself by the hand and not give up. All is allowed me, but not all is beneficial – that's it! One must only do that which is beneficial.

Don't attempt to imitate the podvigs [ascetic feats] of the Saints. They had a special calling from God for this. You should first of all fulfill what's said in the Gospel: Blessed are the poor in spirit! But podvigs – that's a gift from God. How can you compare yourself with John of Kronstadt? Yes, he could pray for something and immediately receive it; but you're not him, and you'll need to pray ten times, one hundred times.

So you read various books, but don't fulfill what's written there. But you try to imitate the Saints! Of course you accomplish nothing, and therefore you're ashamed. That's because you are trying to imitate, but what one needs is to fulfill! Read the Gospel! So when you read spiritual books and the lives of Saints, you should try to imitate someone, but to fulfill God's commandments.

All these deliberations about whether you Commune "unworthily" or "too often" are useless! No one is worthy! For it's said: Give us this day our daily bread. The main thing is to repent of one's sins.

A love for all these little chocolates is simply dissipation. It's better not to buy them at all, except on feast days.

That fasting would be "dull" – that's impossible!

One should fast, but show this to others as little as possible, and don't fight with your parents about it.

Of course it's difficult to live with unbelievers, and there are many temptations. But you should think that they, as it were, temper you, so you should be condescending to them, because one can understand that they can't suddenly become fervent believers. Bear one another's burdens, thereby fulfilling the law of Christ.

If you've managed to cut off your will to others, then be careful that you don't later analyze it, don't complain or grumble about it – or it will be judgment, not obedience.

All depression, negative thoughts, and irritation usually come from idleness, when one isn't doing anything and has lots of free time – so one sits and devises all sorts of things.

It's better not to tell anything about yourself.

One should never yell at anyone. It's useless, anyway.

A large part of the evil in the world in every age comes from gossiping. So be careful! It's better not to tell anything to anybody, and if you're questioned, use your head when answering, and don't go into details.

Never get curious about anything.

Everyone must work in his own place.

Q: "There are certain people I can never get myself to love – only from afar."
A: "God is love. And by the measure by which we judge, we too will be judged. If we can love them only from afar, then the Heavenly Kingdom, too, will be shown to us only from afar.

Don't slump around or walk around with a long face. Don't show your bad mood to people, and don't go around looking gloomy. Remember that you don't live alone, but among people. But you look like you're about to drop dead. You're only going to scare people.

One needs to get up at the same time every day, and early – as we sing "Glory to Thee, Who hath shown forth the light!"

One needs to sleep as much as is good for one's health. But, in general, one should sleep as little as possible. It's better not to sleep during the day, unless you're too tired or can't go on.

Look in the mirror as seldom as possible.

On life in nature: The birds in the forest sing and glorify the Lord. And we must pray, or else nothing good will happen.

Why fear evil people? "Evil people" – they are in our soul. One needs to have a pure heart – and then there's nothing to be afraid of.

Jordanville Started to Commemorate the Head of Moscow Patrarchate

2007-09-13T22:59:00.000-07:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru – Vertograd, Jordanville)

The head of Moscow Patriarchate Patriarch Alexey II was commemorated at Liturgy in Jordanville for the first time of September 2. From now on Partiarch will be commemorated in the services at this main monastery of ROCOR(L).

The reason for the first commemoration was bishops of MP present at the service in Jordanville for the first time. It made many people unhappy, because they believed that such commemoration is possible only after MP condemns ecumenism and sergianism, forbidding those bishops who were known for cooperation with KGB.

A few weeks before September 2 Metropolitan Lauris personally assured a number of people that the Patriarch would never be commemorated in Jordanville.

Jordanville was the main spiritual center of ROCOR. Most of ROCOR clergy studied there and most of ROCOR laity has visited the monastery at least once in their lives. The commemoration of Partiarch Alexey was taken by many as the fall of the biggest citadel of ROCOR.

Partiarch Alexey awards Catholic Bishop for "establishing good relations between Russian Orthodox and Catholic Churches"

2007-09-13T22:58:00.000-07:00

(Official web-site of Moscow Patriarchate – Vertograd, Moscow)

Partiarch Alexey awarded the official representative of Vatican in Russian Federation Catholic Archbishop Antonio Mennini. Catholic hierarch received the order of St Daniel of Moscow of the Third Degree on September 3 "to notice his labors for establishing good relations between Russian Orthodox and Catholic Churches and because of the 60-th anniversary", the official web-site of Moscow Patriarchate reports.

Bishop Damascene (Balabanov) of RusOC Ordained Three More Bishops and Became Metropolitan

2007-09-13T22:57:00.000-07:00

(Official web-site of RusOC – Vertogtrad, Zaporozhje)

Extraordinary Sobor of Bishops of RusOC took place in Zaporozhje on August 29 – September 1 headed by Bishop Damascene (Balabanov) of Oriel and Central Russia. Bishop Damascene and Archbishop Ioann (Zinoviev) of Zaporozhje and Ukraine broke form the group of Metropolitan Anthony (Orlov) in July 2007, and the group of Metropolitan Anthony (Orlov) was formed after Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Victor (Pivovarov) of Kuban broke from ROCOR(V) (ROCiE) shortly before the repose of Metropolitan Vitaly.

During the Sobor Bishop Damascene and Archbishop Ioann ordained three new bishops: Bishop Gregory (Krentsiv) of Belgorod and South Russia, vicar bishop Vladimir (Matveev) of Voskresenksk and Cenral Russia and vicar bishop Pafeniy (Grinjuk) of Izmailovo.

The Sobor elected Bishop Damascene to the rank of Metropolitan and stated that the group of Metropolitan Anthony (Orlov) "had fallen away from the Russian Orthodox Church". (A year ago the group of Metropolitan Anthony (Orlov) stated that everyone who is not with that group "had fallen away from the Russian Orthodox Church"). Besides more than a half clerics of the new church group (7 people) received church awards…

Attack Against ROAC in Suzdal

2007-09-02T22:16:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesial Herald – Vertograd, Suzdal)

On August 24th, there was a demonstration in front of the Synodal headquarters of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in Suzdal, Russia. The demonstrators, members of the Moscow Patriarchate, were accompanied by officers of the local police, and gave interviews to members of the local press, critical of the ROAC Church. As they stood demonstrating, they called out, "Sectarians, get out of Suzdal!" and "Sectarians, get out of Russia!"

Are all sectarians being treated this way, or are the "sectarians" of the ROAC church being singled out for this treatment? What evil are these people doing by going to church and saying their prayers the way they want to? Why would this be a threat to the governing authorities? How does the present government of the Russian Federation even determine who is a sectarian? Since the fall of Communism, Russia, in its bid to join the rest of the civilized nations of the world, has signed international treaties guaranteeing freedom of conscience for its citizens, and separation of church and state.

The Head of Moscow Patriarchate Greets the Latin Mass after Serving the Liturgy Where Four Catholic Bishops Were Present

2007-09-02T22:04:00.000-07:00

(Interxaf-Religion – Vertograd, Moscow)

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum that provides more freedom to use the pre-Vatican II Missal 'is a positive fact,' the Head of MP Patriarch Alexey II said to comment on the Roman Catholic Church reintroducing her ancient liturgical form.

'We strongly adhere to the tradition. Without being faithful to her liturgy the Russian Orthodox Church would have failed to survive persecutions in 1920s and 1930s,' the Russian primate told the Italian daily Giornale on August 28, on the Feast of Dormition, after celebration liturgy in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin.

Four Catholic bishops from Italy were present at that liturgy, as Russian edition of Interfax-religion reports.

The patriarch opined that the pope's decision might contribute to establishing closer links with the Orthodox Churches, Giornale said.

The obligatory Latin Mass was abolished by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) when the Roman Catholic Church legalized liturgical use of modern languages hoping to attract more people. But the results were far from ideal, and the reform led to a schism as Archbishop Marcel Lefevre refused to accept it an faced excommunication in 1988.

Photo: Patriarchial service in the Cathedral of the Dormition in the Kremlin on August 28, 2007. You can see Catholic Bishops among "Orthodox" bishops there.

Possible schism in Moscow Partiarchate

2007-06-14T13:36:00.001-07:00

(Vertograd, Moscow)

Bishop Diomid of Chukotka Diocese of Moscow Partiarchate, 12 priests of this Diocese and also some monks and nuns have issued the second letter to Patriarch Alexey, asking him to condemn ecumenism and to fix a number of serious problems in Moscow Patriarchate. This letter released on June 7 is much firmer then the previous letter of Bishop Diomied issued six months ago.

The new letter is actually an ultimatum, and it leaved no way back to Bishop Diomid and his flock.

Another hierarch of MP, Bishop Hippolitus of Husta at the Ukraine supports Bishop Diomid. Besides a big number of simple priests and faithful support them all over Russia.

Possible schism in ROCOR(V)

2007-06-14T13:35:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, Vladivostok)

Bishop Anastasy of Vladivostok and Far East issued a letter on June 10. Bishop Anastasy reminds that the opening of the Sobor of ROCOR(V) was planned shortly after the Nativity. But now almost the year has passed after the repose of Met Vitaly, but there was no Sobor and the new First-Hierarch has not been elected yet. Bishop Anastasy explains that the possibility of Sobor was blocked by Father Benjamin Joukoff. He also explains the anti-canonical behavior of Bishop Anthony of Moldova of the same church, who was actually trying to seize the power.

Bishop Anastasy urged the faithful of ROCOR(V) to gather the Sobor and to establish the authorities of the church.

Letters of True Orthodox Bishops and Bishop Chrysostomos of the Cyprianites

2007-06-08T10:54:00.002-07:00

(Vertograd, Omsk-Moscow)

Bishops of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) issued a letter to Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Bishop Daniel of Erie, two bishops of ROCOR(L) who did not recognize the union with Moscow Patriarchate. The letter dated May 7/20 was signed by the Head of the Synod Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia, his Deputy Archbishop Benjamin of the Black Sea and Kuban, and the Secretary of the Synod Bishop Dionysy of Novgorod and Tver.

Archbishop Tikhon and his fellow-bishops suggest to Bishops Agafangel and Daniel to start the negotiations about the possible union. They write that the future aim is “the Sobor that will unite all the healthy forces of the former ROCOR that did not take neither the road of sergianism nor the road of sectarianism”. They also specify two things in the Diocese of Archbishop Agathangelos that they find wrong: (1) the presence of the political party of Dmitry Korchinsky in the church and (2) the commemoration of the civil powers of the Ukraine during the service.

Almost the same day, May 9/22, Bishop Daniel of Erie issued his official letter where he treats the RTOC even worse then the MP (see the document below).

The group of Metropolitan Cyprian (Old Calendarist) also issued a letter suggesting to form the union together with Bishops Agafangel, Bishop Daniel and RTOC (see the document below). However the position of the Cyprianites is counted crypto-ecumenistic, because the conception of Metropolitan Cyprian assumes, that at certain conditions the heretical communities must preserve the grace of Church Mysteries.

Declaration of The Right Reverend Daniel, Bishop of Erie, on forming of a Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church Abroad

2007-06-08T10:54:00.001-07:00

In connection with the canonical crisis which occured in ROCA, which was caused by the joining of the First Hierarch, the Synod and virtually all Diaspora bishops, safe for Agafangel, bishop of Tavria and Odessa and me, bishop Daniel of Erie, to the Moscow Patriarchy, and the loss by the First Hierarch of the right of being a Primate (prava Predstoyatel' stva),

Taking into account that since Metropolitan made a schism, enough time has passed, but open declarations by the other bishops of ROCA, against the Act of abolishing the canonical order of ROCA, did not appear,

I, bishop Daniel, following Ukase 362 p.3 of His Holiness Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of the Orthodox Church of Russia from 7/20 of November 1920 and fulfilling the duties delegated to me by the Ukase, I declare that today, 9/22 of May 2007 I, on the rights of the oldest bishop by ordination, formed a Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority (PSEA) of ROCA composed of the bishops remaining in the Church Abroad - I, bishop Daniel of Erie, and Agafangel, bishop of Tavria and Odessa.

In connection with the poor state of my health, I will not be able to actively take part in the restoration of the canonical order of ROCA, the management of the PSEA, the convocation and carrying, with the rights of President of the Fifth All-Diaspora Council.

I voluntarily delegate my rights for this constructive endeavour to the Right Reverend Agafangel, who will be obliged to keep me posted on activities, but foremost, he must listen to the voice of the Church - the voice of the clergy and laypeople. In connection with that, for participation in the administration of the Church, I commission to reinstate, at the Fifth All-Diaspora Council, the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of ROCA made of clergy and laypersons.

If God allows, I would joyously participate, together with bishop Agafangel, in the Hirotoniyas of new bishops for the Church Abroad, but I would like to draw for this important endeavour, our brethren - the Greek Metropolitan Cyprian, the Romanian [Metropolitan] Vlasie and the Bulgarian [Bishop] Photii.

For that cause it is necessary to restore immediately full Eucharistic Communion with the Old Calendar Synods, and to conduct joint meetings with them in the future.

I do not rule out the possibility of reinforcement of the episcopate of ROCA with [bishops] from the Russian groups which have left ROCA recently, and even from the MP.

It seems to me, that the admission of bishops in their present order is possible for all of the aforementioned structures, except for RTOC (Russkaya Istinno-Pravoslavna ya Cerkov', Russian True Orthodox Church - the "Tikhonites" ). Regarding the breadth of economy, in each particular case it is difficult to say, but in general, we should admit from the MP the way it was accepted for them before, and from the Autonomous Russian Church and Mansonville - through supplementing of hierarchical ordinations.

I entrust the Right Reverend Agafangel with sending out as a Circular letter from my name the given Declaration to all the Dioceses of ROCA for the administration in the necessary cases.

Bishop Daniel of Erie
9/22 of May 2007.
Translation of the Relics of St. Nicholas

A letter from Archbishop Chrysostomos, Exarch in America of the Synod of Met Cyprian

2007-06-08T10:51:00.001-07:00

My dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I humbly ask for your prayers, assure you of my own, and send on to you my poor blessing.

May God reward you for your love of unity in the Church, which is a goal that we must all make our priority, and especially those of us who wish to preserve and uphold, in moderate and God-pleasing resistance, the Holy Traditions of the Church. Our strength is found in our unity and in our ability to forgive and sincerely place the Church before all opportunism and personal ambition.

Our spiritual Father, Metropolitan Cyprian, has given his life to the preservation of the conscience of the Greek Church, yet rising, in that task, above the nationalism, phyletism, and personal prerogatives by which the catholicity of Orthodoxy is so easily lost. He has also transcended the slander and false accusations that extremists of sectarian mentality in the Greek Old Calendar movement have hurled against him and which have so sullied the name and goals of that movement in Greece. I urge you to imitate his actions, which have brought our Sister Churches in Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria into spiritual unity.

May God enlighten Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Agafangel to bring all of the Russian spiritual flock that derive from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (as do we Greek Old Calendarists) into union, that with them we and our Sister Churches may build a coalition of resisters who can change the face of an ailing Orthodox witness, assailed by ecumenism and innovation, and restore and preserve the spiritual legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

I trust that someone among you will able to read my English, sadly ignorant as I am of the Russian tongue.

Least Among Monks,
+ Archbishop Chrysostomos
Exarch in America and unworthy servant to Metropolitan Cyprian

Letter of Lesna Monastery sisters concerning their passage under the jurisdiction of the True Orthodox Church of Russia

2007-05-10T07:05:00.000-07:00

Dear in Christ friends and benefactors of our monastery! Christ is Risen!

We wish to inform you that as of the feast of Mid-Pentecost, 19.04/02.05.2007, our monastery will be under the jurisdiction of the True Orthodox Church of Russia. Beginning on Tuesday evening with the Vespers of the feast, we will His Grace, the Most Reverend Archbishop Tikhon, Archbishop of Omsk and Siberia, as our ruling hierarch.Many of you knowour unwillingness to accept the pending union of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad and of our reluctance to follow that path. Our decision was not made lightly. We gave it much thought, sought the advice of many, prayed hard and wept throughout this troubled time.

Sincerely and from the bottom of our hearts we thank our many, many friends and well wishers, from many different jurisdictions, holding the most varied opinions and headed in various directions, for the assistance that they have offered and for the support that they have voiced as we struggled to come to the right decision in choosing a new path for our monastery.We understand that not everyone will agree with us, but we ask you to believe that we have acted according to our conscience, and that we felt we could not decide otherwise without betraying our past, our heavenly protectors, our instructors and the sisters who have gone before us.We do not press anyone to follow us, we do not condemn anyone, nor consider them to be "without grace" or "outside the Church". Our times are very complicated and treacherous and it is truly difficult to come to a decision and to discern the best way without being swayed by one's passions.We do not feel that we have the right to condemn anyone that has come to different conclusions in these matters.The great majority of our sisters support our decision. We will not force anyone to comply with it.And we will assist those sisters that decide otherwise to find homes with other monastic communities.

Some of you have expressed doubts about various jurisdictions, pointing out the weaknesses, mistakes or faults of certain hierarchs.We wish to clarify that we did not choose hierarchs that we liked personally, but the Church body and path that we felt best preserved and perpetuated the teachings and traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Along with the rumours of our refusal to accept union with the Moscow Patriarchate, there has been much talk over the past few months of an imminent move by our monastery to Russia.It is true that since the appearance in Russia of parishes of the Church Abroad, and once sisters from the former Soviet bloc countries began entering our community, we had hoped to found a dependant monastic community there and undertook several steps in that direction.This is something our abbesses had prayed and hoped for, consciously preserving our monastery as a largely Russian-speaking community, with services in Church Slavonic and the traditions of pre-revolutionary Russian monasticism.We do hope eventually to start at least a small skete in Russia.On the other hand, we are well aware of all of the risks and dangers involved in doing business and even just plain living in contemporary Russia, especially for inexperienced foreigners, and we have no intention of dropping everything in Provemont and forcibly transporting our sisters to some unknown destination.We intend to continue our monastic life within the walls of our presentmonastery according to our strength and financial possibilities.

Many of you know of the complications with the legal status and ownership of our property.The church, houses and land in Provemont officially belong to the so-called "Association of Friends" of the monastery, comprised of clergy and laity from many different jurisdictions; in short, of everyone except the sisters of the monastery. It is entirely possible that our adherance to the True Orthodox Church of Russia will lead to claims on our property, to legal action, to inter-jurisdictional squabbling and financial difficulties.Many lawyers and notaries have assured us on numerous occasions that, as the monastery has been paying the property tax on this real estate for many years in it's own name and from it's own funds, and has maintained the estate at it's own expense, with virtually no help from the hierarchy of the Church Abroad, it de facto belongs to us and that it is impossible to evict us.Nevertheless, our uncertain situation worries the sisters, and we ask for your prayers and support.

Ever since its foundation ina largely non-Orthodox area on the borders of the Russian Empire, our monastery has been open to all that seek God and the Truth, and such, God willing, it shall always remain.All pilgrims to our miracle-working Icon of the Mother of God of Lesna or wishing to venerate our many other spiritual treasures will always be welcome, and we will accomodate them as best we can according to our means and our monastic rules.In questions regarding participation in our liturgical life and in the Sacraments we will be guided by the instructions of our hierarchs.

Our life will undoubtably change to some degree in these new circumstances.We do not know if we will be able to continue celebrating the Divine Liturgy daily, as for now only Hieromonk Evfimy (Trofimov) is remaining with us.We hope to continue celebrating the entire cycle of services, but we will have to take into account a smaller community and the necessity of providing for ourselves.Financially the monastery is managing, but donations have always been a great help, and we have no idea as to what sort of assistance we can rely on in the future.When the nuns in San Francisco seperated themselves from the Church Abroad they were accused of taking funds that were intended for a monastery specifically of the Church Abroad.We dare to hope that you have made your donations with the intent of supporting our monastic life regardless of what jurisdiction we were under.

We humbly ask your prayers for us as we embark on this new path.Metropolitan Philaret, who considered Lesna his summer home, left us the words "…that which ye have already hold fast…" (Rev. 2:25) as his last testament, and such is our intention.The recently reposed Metropolitan Vitaly, who twice convened Church Councils at our monastery, ended his days in exile and poverty, and we do not fear a similar fate.Our sense of the unceasing protection of the Most Holy Mother of God, St. John of Kronstadt's letter preserved here, promising not to abandon our monastery, the appearance of St. John of Shanghai to the guardian of his chapel in San Francisco, reminding him that Lesna needed help, and the recent news that the remains of our foundress, Abbess Catherine, were discovered incorrupt, fill us with hope and strengthen our faith in the prayers and intercession on our behalf in heaven.And we ask your prayers for us sinners.

With profound gratitude and always with love in Christ,
Abbess Macrina and sisters

19.04/02.05.2007
Mid Pentecost

A representative of Synod of ROCOR(L) Bishop Michael (Donskoff) brought two Ukases to Bishop Agafangel of Odessa

2007-04-30T23:56:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, Odessa)

A representative of Synod of ROCOR(L) Bishop Michael (Donskoff) of Geneva and Western Europe visited Odessa Diocese of ROCOR(L) on April 25-28. This Diocese is known for its struggle against the union with Moscow Partiarchate, so that the leadership of MP raised the question of liquidation of this Diocese.

The official reason of the visit of Bishop Michael was the "regulation of the situation with the parishes and clergy at the Ukraine before signing the Act of canonical communion between ROCOR and MP on May 17". However, in fact Bishop Michael presented an ultimatum to Bishop Agafangel by showing him two opposite Ukases of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR(L). One of them was the unknown before decision to move Bishop Agafangel to Brazil, to the Diocese of South America. Another Ukase was about his suspension in case of his disagreement to be moved to Brazil.

In reply to this Ultimatum the clergy present at the meeting with Bishop Michael applied to be retired.

According to some sourced Bishop Agafangel received the Ukase to be removed to Brasil, where many people of the Diocese of South America do not support the coming unity with MP. In any case because of visa and documentation difficulties Bishop Agafangel will not be able to go to Brazil before May 17. His decision is understood my many as a "time out" before the coming union that will change very much the current situation in ROCOR(L).

A new book has been published on Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), the third Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

2007-04-30T23:55:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, Saint Petersburg)

"A Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (1964–1985)", preparation of texts, commentary and introduction by Nun Kassia ( T.A. Senina): St. Petersburg, "Scriptorium" publications, 2007 (in Russian). 608 pages.

The St. Petersburg publishing house "Scriptorium" has released a book about Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky: 1903–1985), the third Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (1964–1985). The book was prepared by nun Kassia (Senina).

Metropolitan Philaret was the great confessor of Orthodoxy in the twentieth century, the only leader of an Orthodox Church to come forward openly before the whole world to denounce the new heresy of ecumenism — for during the presidency of Metropolitan Philaret, the heresy of ecumenism was synodically anathematized by the Bishops' Sobor of the ROCA in 1983.

This hierarch strove to support the zealots and confessors of Orthodoxy throughout the whole world — both the members of the Catacomb Church in Russia, and of the Old Calendarist Greek jurisdictions. The incorrupt relics of Saint Philaret were recovered in 1998.

This present book contains a "Life" of the Saint, his epistles, letters, selected sermons, church documents and papers, the recollections of his contemporaries, and likewise a description of the glorification of the Saint by the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in 2001, together with the service composed in honor of the Saint.

Some of this material is appearing in print for the first time. The book is furnished with 62 photographs.

The book can be obtained from the publisher: vertograd.news@gmail.com

Three More American Clerics Left ROAC

2007-03-15T09:20:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, New York)

Three more American clerics have left ROAC. Archimandrite Ephraem left with St. Barbara's Monastery (New Jersey), Protopriest Michael Fresco left with the church of St.Maximus (California) and Deacon Nicholas Stanoschek left with the church of St.Basil of Kineshma (Colorado) that was the first parish of ROAC in America.

According to some sources Archimandrite Ephraem has already become a bishop in some "Hellenic True Orthodox Church".

Several years ago ROAC had more them 20 clerics in the USA. The failure of the mission of ROAC in America is connected with an unfortunate "personnel policy" of the First Hierarch of ROAC Metropolitan Valentine. At first he consecrated as a bishop of Colorado a scandalous and very unpopular Archimandrite Gregory (Abu-Assaly), and after Archbishop Gregory left ROAC, Metropolitan Valentine consecrated as a bishop inanimate Andrew (Maklakov).

Now Bishop Andrew has the following clergy: retired Protopresbyter Vladimir Shishkoff (he is not able to serve), Archpriest Fotios Roseboro (he was ordained two years ago and shortly after the ordination he was made a Archpriest by Metropolitan Valentine), and two priests that were received less than a year ago from ecumenical jurisdictions where they had been forbidden because of canonical problems (Father Elias Greer of GOARCH and Father Isaac Henke of AAOA).

Letter of Bishop Agafangel of Odessa (ROCOR(L)) to Mettopolitan Laurus Concerning the Meeting Of The All World Russian National Council In Moscow

2007-03-15T09:19:00.000-07:00

Your Eminence Vladyka Laurus,

I was recently informed of the All World Russian National Council held in Moscow on March 5th through the 7th hosted by Alexy II of the Moscow Patriarchate. The participants of this Council were the representatives of governmental institutions of the Russian Federation; leaders of political parties; and businessmen representing themselves. There were also representatives of religious organizations, as far as I know, Orthodox, Old Believers, Muslims, and Jews. Also participating, acting as a member of this Council, was a representative of the ROCOR.

Questions of significance for Russia with regard to civil matters were put forth and discussed at this Council. This is all well and good for meetings of such a nature which may serve to consolidate the society and strengthen the power of the state. But only in such a case in which these types of meetings are of a solely civic character do I support.

However, I was very much taken aback by one characteristic of this meeting - that it was conducted in the worship area of the Church Of Christ The Saviour, under the presiding of the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexy II. Amongst those persons participating in this meeting were those who believe in the clear image of Christ the Saviour, and those who refuse to believe in His image and in His sacrifice for us.

We remember very well the words of our Saviour, "Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there I am in the midst of them." But Christ could *not* have been in the midst of this meeting, as the meeting was not at all held in His Name. For this Council was opened with a common prayer.

Now to whom did the participants pray? Not to Christ, but to the "father," addressing him, whom it is possible, according to Alexy II's past statement to the Jewish rabbinate of New York, that the "father" being the object of common prayer, applies to both Christians and Jews. And according to the logic of this conception, would apply even to Muslims as well.

However, is it possible to divide God the Father from God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to separate the unity of the undivided Trinity into disunited parts? Therefore they were not praying to "God the Father" either. Then to whom did they pray? I will not cite here the canons which place outside of the Church those who dare to pray with heretics and in heretical manner. These canons are well known.

What has occurred at this meeting was the ongoing activities of the ecumenist heresy, of which heresy the ROCOR has always spoken against. Now we ourselves are among the participants of ecumenical prayer. How was it then that a ROCOR representative took part in this meeting and read a statement as a ROCOR representative? Was it possible that this was done with the blessing of the ROCOR Synod of which you head?

I remain in the hope that all that occurred at this Council was a mistake and that the Synod of which you head will give a correct opinion of all that occurred at this sorrowful event. And that the Synod will convince the flock that in the future our representatives at such meetings will participate only when civic matters are discussed, and not those of the Faith. As for now, it seems that if the current trend continues, the next meeting held under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate will be held in a synagogue or in a mosque. And will a representative of the ROCOR be a participant at such a meeting once again?

Since that which has taken place has been published in all sorts of Mass Media and has shaken the consciences of many Orthodox believers, I am forced to publicly address my concerns to you with the hope that you will make the necessary steps to correct the error. As I count on your understanding of this matter, I remain a true follower of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

+Agafangel
Odessa, March 10 2007

(Translated by "Church news")

Bishop Agathangelos of ROCOR(L) Headed Lenten Meeting of Clergy

2007-03-10T12:06:00.000-08:00

(Web-site of Odessa Diocese – Vertograd, Odessa)

BishopAgathangelos of Tavria and Odessa (ROCOR(L) in the Ukraine) headed Lenten Meeting of Clergy of his diocese. More then 20 priests participated. They confessed on March 6 and had Liturgy on March 7. Then after the trapeza (dinner) they hold an annual meeting where they discussed the situation in ROCOR(L) on the eve of signing the Act of Communion with Moscow Patriarchate. Besides two commissions were formed: Youth Commission and Choir Commission. It was decided to start the Youth Camp in summer and Choir Conference.

The next meeting of clergy is scheduled right after May 17, the day when the Act of Communion is to be signed. The diocese is firmly against the union with Moscow Partiarchate on current terms, when MP had not denied anything concerning ecumenist or sergianism.

Crisis Develops in GOC Headed by Archbishop Makarios

2007-03-05T10:31:00.000-08:00

("Omologits"– Vertograd, Athens /Greece/)

Three bishops have left “Kallinikates” GOC Synod in the last half-year and a number of priests and deacons have been punished.

On September 15, 2006 Metropolitan Niphon of Piraeus sent a document to the Holy Synod stating he had seceded and intended to remain autonomous. In a special meeting the Holy Synod decided to remove Metropolitan Niphon from his diocese as well as from all administrative services. As was expected, Metropolitan Arethas of Crete, a member of Metropolitan Niphon's brotherhood, followed him in seceding. In December 2006 the Synod of the “Kallinikites” forbid them from serving.

In January 2007 Metropolitan Angelos of Avlona left this Synod too. He proclaimed the Metropolia of Avlona and established communion with several ecumenical churches: Italian, Montenegrin, Bulgarian and Patriarchate of Kiev.

In December 2006 two priest of this church in the Ukraine were defrocked: priest Seraphim Medvedev and priest Ioann.

In January 2007 the following clergy of this church was committed for trial: priest Joseph Sunderland, priest Steven Allen, priest George Poullas, deacon Paul Brown, deacon Sergei Boulter, deacon John Somers.

Tension Grows Between Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Bishop Sebastian of Chelyabinsk

2007-03-05T04:46:00.000-08:00

(Suzdal Diocesian Herald — Vertograd, Suzdal — Moscow)

The gathering of bishops of Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) headed by Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir took an unusual decision against Bishop Sebastian of Chelyabinsk: "To deprive him from Holy Communion in the churches of his Diocese and other churches of ROAC for one year". This decision was not reported to anybody in ROAC for three weeks, it was published in Suzdal Diocesian Herald only on February 17, saying that the decision was taken on January 28.

The main reason of the punishment is that in November 2007 Bishop Sebastian concelebrated with Hegumen Gregory (Lourie) who was "defrocked" by Metropolitan Valentine without any trial or any court a year before.

The priests of Chelyabinsk Diocese of ROAC did not support the "punishment" and they count Bishop Sebastian as their ruling bishop, so soon the whole diocese of ROAC may be "punished". A number of other priests of ROAC support Bishop Sebastian as well.

The gathering of the bishops that took the strange decision included four more bishops that mostly live in Suzdal with Metropolitan Valentine: Archbishop Theodore of Borisovskoe and Otradnoe, Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumi and Abhazia, Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Briansk and retired Bishop Ambrose (who was forced to leave his diocese because of his severe problems with alcohol addiction). The gathering called themselves a "Synod", but this group was never appointed by a church as a Synod: there was no Sobor in ROAC, so the rights and membership of a Synod were never determined. Metropolitan Valentine is the only person in ROAC who decides what bishops will participate this or that "Synod meting" to sign the decisions prepared by him. The membership of bishops differs for every meeting.

Bishop Sebastian of ROAC, Hegumen Gregory and other clergy and people are not planning to leave ROAC. "The Initiative Group of Clergy, Monks and Laypeople" have been formed in ROAC in order to instate the proper canonical order of ROAC.

Another Bishop is Ordained in the RocOC under Met Anthony (Orlov)

2006-11-25T01:42:00.000-08:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru – Vertograd, Moscow)

Archimandrite of ROCOR(L) Ioann (Zinoviev) was received to RusOC under Met Anthony (Orlov) and consecrated bishop of Zaporozhe and Malorossia on November 24, 2006 in Sherbinka (Moscow region). Bishop Ioann has become the sixth bishop of RusOC, four of them have been ordained within the recent four months.

The consecration took place in accordance with a decision of the Synod of RusOC, which met shortly before it. All the bishops were present except for Victor Pivovarov, who delegated his voice to Met Anthony (Orlov). The Synod also established a new diocese of Malorossia, which includes Ukraine and Moldova (this area belonged to the diocese of Bishop Victor before).

The service started at 6 A.M. and not more than 10 people were present at the consecration (RusOC does not have too many people or parishes). After the service and consecration there was a dinner, that Met Anthony did not participate. He was leaving Russia, where he spent more than a month.

A newly ordained Bishop Ioann has already been a bishop before. He had been a bishop of Kiev Partiarchate, which was not recognized when he was received to ROCOR in 2003. He was received to ROCOR as an Archimandrite, that was his latest rank in Moscow Partiarchate where he had been before. The decision of his new hierarchical consecration in RocOC formally contradicts the previos decision of that Church (dated by Nov 3) to re-baptise and re-ordain any clergy that got their ranks in Moscow Partiarchate.

Archbishop Anthony (Orlov) Becomes the First-Hierarch of a Russian (Rossijskaya) Orthodox Church

2006-11-10T04:48:00.000-08:00

(“Mech I Trost” – Portal-Credo.Ru – Vertograd, Moscow – St.-Petersburg)

Archbishop Anthony (Orlov) was elected a First-Hierarch of the ROCOR(A) at the Sobor of this church in the village of Scherbinka (Moscow region, Russia) on November 2-4.

A new hierarch — Bishop Athanasy of Nizhni Novgorod and Ural — was consecrated at the first service of the Sobor on November 2. He took participated the Sobor along with Archbishop Anthony (Orlov), Archbishop Victor of Cuban and South Russia, Bishop Damascene of Central Russia and Bishop Stephan of Ust-Sysol and Northern Russia.

The new First-Hierarch of this church Metropolitan Anthony will have the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, and the church will have the name of a Russian (Rossijskaya) Orthodox Church, as was decided at the Sobor. It has five bishops and about ten priests now.

In his first sermon the new First-Hierarch emphasized that contemporary Russia “is run by intruders and foreigners”, whose aim is “to destroy Orthodoxy in Russia”.

“Pray at the walls of Moscow Kremlin for riddance of the enemies that are still here”, — Metropolitan Anthony said to those in church.

“I will not rule the Church from abroad, I will come often”, Metropolitan Anthony promised.

Metropolitan Lauris is Not Commemorated at the Ukrainian Dioceses of ROCOR(L) Anymore

2006-10-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, Odessa \the Ukraine\)

Bishop Agathangelos of Odessa and the Dioceses of ROCOR(L) do not commemorate Metropolitan Lauris after the Synod of ROCOR(L) approved the “Act on Communion with Moscow Patriarchate” on September 6, Archimandrite Ioann (Zinoviev) reports.

Archimandrite Ioann is the Executive manager (Upravlajushij delami) of the Zaporizh Diocese of ROCOR(L) and the delegate of the 4th Sobor of the ROCOR in San Francisco. His letter was placed on the official web site of the Zaporizh Diocese.

The congress of all the clergy of the Ukrainian dioceses of ROCOR(L) is scheduled at October 12. The current state of ROCOR and the plans for the future will be discussed there.

A New Book Has Been Published on the Hieromartyr Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd

2006-10-01T10:31:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd, St-Petersburg)

“Hieromartyr Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd: Life and Works”, compiled by M. S. Sakharov and L. E. Sikorskaya; preparation of texts, commentary and introduction by L. E. Sikorskaya: St. Petersburg, “Kifa” publications, 2006 (in Russian). 342 pages.

The St. Petersburg publishing house “Kifa” has released a book on the Hieromartyr Joseph (Petrovykh), Metropolitan of Petrograd — one of the leaders of the opposition to Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). This publication inaugurates a new series “The New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia Before the Face of the Godless Regime”, and it is not coincidental that it was decided to feature the life of Metropolitan Joseph first of all. The position taken by him provokes controversy even until now. The Moscow Patriarchate refused to glorify him amidst the choir of the New Martyrs of Russia; whereas for the True Orthodox Christians this Hierarch is dear as the founder of the Catacomb Church, as a symbol of the struggle for the purity of the Faith — a struggle which is not so much political, as it is spiritual.

One of the compilers of this “Life” of the Saint is the New Martyr’s own great-nephew, M. S. Sakharov. He was able to gather together extensive and unique materials from State archives and from the works of contemporary historians. The personality of Metropolitan Joseph is illuminated from the most diverse, and at times, unexpected, perspective. The reader will see not only an uncompromising champion against Sergianism and godlessness, but also a distinguished scholar, an ascetic, and one of the most respected and revered hierarchs of the Russian Church.

A significant part of the book is devoted to excerpts from his composition — so popular among the Orthodox faithful at the beginning of the twentieth century — “In the Father’s Embrace: the Diary of a Monk”. The future hieromartyr began keeping this diary a few years before his tonsure, while still a layman, Ivan Semyenovich Petrovykh, and he continued it for the course of several decades. Unfortunately, this “Diary” has never been re-printed, which is much to be regretted, once one has read the excerpts given here. Imitating, to a certain degree, the “Diary” of Fr. John of Kronstadt, the future hierarch writes: “In possessing this present book, know, dear reader, that in a certain sense, you possess my soul! Do not mock her; do not judge her; do not reproach her. For she is revealed here before you as she is revealed only to ones spiritual father, or to ones closest friend. She is revealed in all her hidden movements, daily moods, emotions, defects and infirmities…”

It is precisely the reading of these heartfelt passages which makes it possible to grasp how the character of such people was formed who were prepared to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the Church’s freedom. The entire path of Metropolitan Joseph’s life, which is related in detail in this book, testifies to one thing: a correct ecclesiology is impossible unless one lives according to the Gospel.

The “Life of Metropolitan Joseph” is furnished with rare photographs, extracts from archival files and the episcopal documents of Metropolitan Joseph himself.

The book can be obtained from the publisher “Kifa”: St. Petersburg, No. 23, Ul. 4 Rozhdestvenskaya (formerly Sovetskaya). Telephone: + 7 (812) 717-34-86, fax: 717-94-71. Or visit their web-site: www.kifakniga.ru

Metropolitan Vladimir of Saint-Petersburg Blesses the Stage of a Theatre

2006-08-31T10:38:00.000-07:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru – Vertograd, Saint-Petersburg)

Metropolitan Vladimir of Saint-Petersburg, Member of the Synod of Moscow Partiarchate, blessed the stage of Alexandrinsky Theatre Saint-Petersburg in on the 30th of August. In such a way he celebrated the 250-th Anniversary of the first state stage of Russia. The ceremony was performed with the blessing of Patriarch Alexey, who sent his telegram of congratulation.

If was mentioned at the ceremony that the archive of the Theatre keeps the receipt for the payment to the magicians that had found the best place for the Theatre to be built.

The playbill of the Theatre often mentions that the performance is not recommended for children younger than 16 years old.

Union or Schism?

2006-08-31T10:30:00.000-07:00

The joint commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) continue their work, but the issues dividing the two churches remain the same. All the while, the Russian press continues to speak of the union of the churches as a settled matter. Novoye Russkoye Slovo (NRS) was able to have its question on these issues answered by Bishop Gabriel, the Secretary of ROCOR and Bishop of the Manhattan diocese.

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, the Secretary of the ROCOR joint commission, recently told a journalist in Russia that the Synod of Bishops in New York City was developing a grand ceremony to mark the union. Have matters really gone that far?

Archpriest Alexander probably meant to say that if the ROCOR episcopate ratifies the proposal known as the “Act for Eucharistic Communion” between our two churches, that is to say the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church that were never united, then at that time it would be appropriate to develop a ceremony to mark the signing. First we must accept the “Act.” At the next scheduled meeting of our Synod, planned for early September, this matter is slated for discussion. Many points in the proposed “Act” require further deliberation. The issues of the Moscow Patriarchate’s involvement in the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the MP’s position on the well-known “Declaration of Patriarch Sergius” remain unresolved.

Who would authorize the commission’s secretary to discuss the matter of the solemn ceremony before the signing of the “Act?”

It would be best to ask Fr. Alexander himself about that. It’s possible that he is rushing matters along in anticipation of union, but this haste seems premature to me and many others in ROCOR. Even President Putin remarked that matters related to the process of union of the churches should not be forced.

Isn’t Archpriest Lebedev duty-bound to keep his statements in line with the official positions of his superiors?

Certainly. He is in a subordinate position and answers to the chairman of our commission, Archbishop Mark, the Bishop for Berlin-Germany and Great Britain.

Who is, as we all know, one of the primary proponents of immediate union. Is it possible that the dioceses of western Europe may join with the MP on their own, without waiting for agreement by the Synod?

As Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, I know of no such plans. I cannot answer on behalf of the dioceses of western Europe, they have their own ruling bishops. My wish, though, is that we can come to a common agreement on the matters before us and that it will not lead to a schism.

In his discussion of the ceremony, Lebedev says that it will include expressions of repentance from the ROCOR representatives. What repentance could there possibly be?

I did not read such statements in Fr. Alexander Lebedev’s remarks. I believe you are referring to information provided in an article in the newspaper “Nasha Strana.” This newspaper represents the views of schismatic groups who seek to do harm to our church. It would seem to me that if there is talk of repentance, we should expect it from those who consider themselves disciples of the false teachings which the MP has followed since the 1920’s. If we have erred somehow in the past and this is brought to our attention, then I believe we will repent accordingly. I would think the main matters of contention would be our opening of ROCOR parishes in Russia, or the ordination of Archbishop Valentin of Suzdal. I agree that the ordination of Valentin was a mistake, but to put this mistake on the level of the “Declaration of Patriarch Sergius” is just not possible, by simple fact of their difference in magnitude. The “Declaration” was a grave deviation from the church’s norm and recognized a regime which openly persecuted the church.

I have often heard accusations that ROCOR collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. Perhaps someone expects repentance for that?

The German government, which was headed by Hitler, helped ROCOR build a church in Berlin in 1938. At that time, all the nations in the West and East were actively cooperating with Hitler (who was the legal head of the German government. Ed.). Excellent relations were maintained with him by Moscow and Washington. People from all over the world attended the Olympics in Berlin (in 1936. Ed.). The situation changed only after World War II erupted. And to call the establishment of churches in the parts of Russia occupied by Germany “collaboration with the Nazis” is unthinkable. Let’s not forget that these churches were closed, defiled, some even turned into warehouses by the Soviet regime. If that had not happened, it would not have been necessary to restore them as churches. Also, that earlier some ROCOR bishops blessed the work of the ROA (Russian Liberation Army. Ed.), we need to remember the mindset of the Russian émigrés of the time. They believed the ROA (even though German led) could be the force that could liberate Russia from the Bolsheviks.

After the proceedings of the 4th All-Diaspora Council ended, many opponents of union at any cost began to have a more accepting view of the work of the joint commissions. They realized that the bishops stand firm in their positions and immediate union with MP is not expected. Nevertheless, one reads in the Russian press the opinion that the Council had only a consultative role, while the issue of union will be decided by the Synod of Bishops.

In accordance with the Holy Canons, all final decisions are made by the episcopate, the Synod of Bishops, but as those same Canons stipulate, it cannot ignore the wishes of the clergy and laypeople, and even the bishops themselves, as the Resolution of the Council in San Francisco was agreed upon by all of them together.

After the proceedings of the 4th All-Diaspora Council ended, a priest in New York City, Fr. Victor Dobroff, said in an interview with a NRS reporter that he believed it would make sense at this time to reconsider the composition of the joint commission, as it does not reflect the opinions of either the laypeople or the clergy.

This proposal was also made at the All-Diaspora Council. Such matters should be decided by the Synod. Perhaps, the question of the need to change the personnel of the commission will be raised during the Synod’s meeting in September, when its work relating to the proposed “Act” will be discussed.

A statement has been made in the Russian press, that joint prayer has been established. That is, that official union is simply a formality. Is that true?

I heard just such a sentiment last year from his Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow. He informed me that during a visit to Moscow, that praying together occurred and that joint prayer was established. I feel that view is somewhat of an exaggeration. Typically, in the Orthodox Church, full Eucharistic communion is achieved only when clergy serve the Holy Liturgy together. This has not occurred yet. A memorial service to the New Holy Martyrs of Russia was held at which our delegation was present. That can be considered, if you wish, only a sort of common prayer.

Are you surprised that the Moscow Patriarch constantly sends letters of congratulations to leaders of communist countries like Vietnam, North Korea or Cuba?

This gives a basis for the fear of many of our clergy and laypeople that the MP has not yet broken with its Soviet past. This involvement in international matters is especially unusual, when the Russian people are in such need of religious education. Less than 2% of the Orthodox believers in Russia go to church. This is the problem that the MP should be attempting to resolve. Instead, the Patriarch sends out congratulations to heads of states which persecute Christians.

At the Council in San Francisco, an informal poll was conducted of the delegates on their opinion of the union. The poll revealed that most were opposed. How do you think the clergy and laypeople feel about it?

I think the press often makes the same mistake, either saying that “a majority of émigrés oppose union” or “a majority is for union.” I believe a significant majority of our Church support the idea of union, but the argument, which is sometimes heated, is about how and in what way that union will be achieved, but only after those two critical issues, which ROCOR puts to the MP, are addressed. Even if someone says they are against union, that does not mean that that person categorically does not want anything to do with the MP under any circumstances. One needs to only question the person further and you will find that he or she insists on the resolution of those two points that ROCOR has always required of the MP. We desire union, after the MP leaves the WCC, which will answer the wishes of millions of the MP’s own clergy and laypeople, and after the MP loudly and clearly explains its stand on the “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius. We fully understand how difficult it is for the hierarchy of the MP, but we also have problems, and there are many, related to the coming together of our churches. That is why we must proceed with extreme caution.

You meet with representatives of MP, how willing do you believe they are to compromise?

One gets the impression that at this time, not very. Our requests go unanswered. The MP continues to participate in ecumenical events and the same can be said about their stand on sergianstvo. An official acknowledgement, in unequivocal terms, of the mistaken “Declaration” of 1927 is not expected. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to believe that many in Russia still feel that Sergius’ actions were the only possible ones at the time and that he saved the church from being destroyed completely. One can understand such a view, but that does not mean it “trumps” our opinion. Those who do not admit their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

Let us imagine that all disagreements are resolved and the “Act” is signed. What degree of independence will ROCOR still have?

The “Act” talks of restoring Eucharistic communion and the recognition of the Moscow Patriarch as the spiritual head of the Russian Church, but at the same time, ROCOR will retain its administrative, proprietary and financial independence. Nothing will change in those regards. The worry is that the MP hierarchy will interfere in our life for no good reason. For now, we must still overcome the obstacles you allude to in your question. Let us be patient.

This is the English translation of the interview which was conducted
by aReporter of the “Novoye Russkoye Slovo.”
New York, August 25, 2006.
The translation was published
in LiveJournal of Dr. Magerovsky

ROCOR(A) is formed in Mansonville

2006-07-25T02:14:00.000-07:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru – Official web-site of ROCOR(A) – Vertograd, Mansonville)

June 23, Archbishop Anthony (Orloff) issued an Ukaz where he says that “he counts this his duty to take the temporary ruling of the ROCOR” because of the poor condition of Met Vitaly “who is not able sometimes even to recognize his Deputy and bishops”, because of the “inconsistent and false Ukazes canceling the previous Ukazes signed by the First Hierarch” and because of the “malicious isolation of First-Hierarch”.

This Ukaz marks the beginning of new church ROCOR(A). Archbishop Anthony and bishop Victor (Pivovarov) of Kuban will probably ordain two more bishops soon: Archimandrite Damascene (Balabanov) and Archimandrite Stefan (Babaev).

The ordination of these two candidates was supposed to be discussed on the Sobor of ROCOR(V) organized by Archbishop Anthony and Bishop Victor, but blocked by their opponents.

The day before, on June 22, Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Antony were invited to the local police station so that Metropolitan, officially, without any outside influence, could express his will regarding the presence in the residence of the First Hierarch in Mansonville of Archbishop Antony and his supporters. To the question of the police officer, "does Metr. Vitaly wish that Orloff, Pivovarov, Balabanov, Babaev, and Mitze leave the territory of the Transfiguration Skete?" Metropolitan Vitaly firmly replied, "Yes, I wish it." Having heard the answer of Metropolitan Vitaly, Archb. Antony (Orloff) made an attempt to persuade the Metropolitan to change his decision, but was stopped by the police officer with the words: "Enough. The answer has been received." After the filling out of the necessary forms, Metropolitan Vitaly returned to his residence.

The Russian group (Bishop Victor of Kuban and Archimandrites Damascene and Stephan) were asked by the police to leave Mansonville before July 25.

Partiarch Alexey on the Unity with ROCOR(L)

2006-07-25T02:11:00.000-07:00

(Interfax-Religion – Vertograd, Moscow)

The unity of the ROCOR(L) and the Moscow Patriarchate may be completely re-established by the end of 2006, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia thinks.

In the end of this year a joint liturgy may be celebrated by representatives of the two Churches in the Cathedral of the Assumption of the Moscow Kremlin, he said in his interview to the 1-st Channel on June 23. Such things can be reported on the main TV-channel in Russia only when they have a more than simple hopes.

`We say that communion in prayer is needed. I think, however, it has already been achieved,' Alexy II added. He recalled that the delegation of ROCOR(L) headed by its first hierarch had visited Russia last year and attended the three services celebrated by the patriarch, praying at them.

Archimandret Andrew (Maklakov) becomes Bishop of Pavlovskoe

2006-06-22T11:28:00.000-07:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru - Vertograd, Suzdal)

The khirotonia of the Archimandrite Andrew (Maklakov) as bishop of Pavlovskoe, vicar of the Suzdal Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), took place on June 21 in the Holy Tzar Constantine Cathedral in Suzdal. The khirotonia was carried out by three ROAC bishops that constantly live in Suzdal: the First-Hierarch Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, Archbishop Theodore of Borisovskoye and Ostradnoye and Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Briansk.

The title of the new hierarch is for the village of Pavlovskoe, near Suzdal, where ROAC has temple of St. John the Forerunner.

Bishop Andrew graduated from the ROCOR Holy Trinity Theological Seminary and for many years he served as a clergyman of this Church. In his youth he was a spiritual son of Archbishop Andrei (Rymarenko) - the last spiritual son of Elder Nectarius of Optina. He was made a priest by St.Philaret of New York in 1982. After the "Nativitiy Epistle" of Met Vitaly in 1986 he left ROAC and stayed with the Matthewites. In 2003 Father Andrew was received in ROAC. He serves in the parish of St.Nicholas in New Jersey (USA).

Paschal Epistle of Valentine Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

2006-04-22T10:43:00.000-07:00

To the Reverend Pastors, Monastics,
and All Loyal Children of the Russian Orthodox Church

“Belief in the resurrection is the crown of faith and the stone upon which faith is tested. Belief in the resurrection separates the Christian from the non-Christian.”
Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Spiritually contemplating and celebrating the radiant day of the resurrection from the dead of Christ the Life-giver, His beloved bride, the Holy Orthodox Church, “Which He hath purchased with His Own Blood,” exults, calling her faithful children to enter into the joy of her Lord.

The most precious and pure possession that we have in this earthly life is the good news that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. This news ignites faith, strengthens hope, and increases love.

Through this supernatural event of the victorious resurrection, God was well pleased to grant unto mankind both wonder, and wisdom. Just as during the time of the apostles, when the masses demanded to see miracles, and the more educated, such as the Greeks, sought wisdom (1 Cor. 1:22), the Christian faith increased the reputation of the Church of Christ, and introduced to the world the miracle of the resurrection of Christ.

It is essential to remember that while accepting or rejecting the news of Christ’s rising from the dead, we all, nevertheless, remain the same creatures of God as we were, capable of opening our souls and hearts to the call of our Creator. Man has been given the freedom of choice; to accept or to reject, to believe or not to believe.

Faith is a gift from God! A burning lamp is capable of being snuffed out by a strong burst of wind, or, to the contrary, is capable of being fanned into a bright flame, which gives light to all. On the eve of our Lord’s Passion and sufferings on the cross, treasuring the gift of faith, the Apostle Simon-Peter, in the name of the entire gathering of all of the apostles, asked Christ, his Lord and Divine Teacher, “Lord, increase our faith!”

“Confirm, O God, the holy Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Christians,” asks the holy Church of her Lord even until now. The Christian faith is founded on the immutable truth of the resurrection of Christ, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain,” says the holy Apostle Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:14).

We must feed the flaming fire of our faith with our love for God, actively intensifying our pursuit of the Christian virtues, so that “men may see your good works, and glorify your Father, Who is in heaven.” Hoping in God, and trusting in Him, no man has the right to deny His holy Church, “Which He hath purchased with His Own Blood,” or to hold his own vain opinions higher than His canons and rules, remembering that “only those, who are found to be in the Church may receive salvation, for it is only to the Church that the Lord has promised an eternal kingdom. (From the “Spiritual Meadow.”)

The most joyous feast of the Lord’s Pascha, annually renewed for us by the holy Church, should become for us the precursor of divine and eternal life. The soul must be renewed in God, and in the light of His resurrection.

Behind us now lies the field of great lent, which we have just finished; days of fasting and of feeling remorse for our sins. We are comforted by our Christian hope that the merciful God will forgive us our sins, just as He forgave the prodigal son, the repentant sinful woman, and the publican who amended his life.

The love of God strengthens us and inspires us. The joy of the resurrection fills us with spiritual ecstasy and with a feeling of triumph of the truth of the kingdom of God.

We must not lose sight of the fact that these moments of triumphant joy will pass, and we will be left with our earthly vanities and cares, labors, sorrows, and illnesses, which will act to diminish the spark of faith, cool the soul, and try to drown out our spiritual joy. “If we do not work to keep the flame of faith going in our hearts, then because of our carelessness it may completely die out in us, and Christianity with all of its sacraments will become as something lifeless for us. This is exactly what the enemy strives for—to put out the fire of faith in our hearts and consign the truths of Christianity to forgetfulness,” as St. John of Kronstadt writes in his diary.

And then perhaps someone will say to us, “Where now is the triumph of the risen Christ? What has happened to the joy that was once in the human heart?” Knowing our weaknesses and wishing to help us in every way possible, the holy Church has equipped us with rules and regulations, services and rituals, through the keeping of which we can gain and increase zeal for God, which is an inexhaustible fountain of good deeds and of an all God-pleasing life; it is a bush that burns and is yet unconsumed. If you stop up a fountain, the flow of refreshing and life-giving water will cease; if you restrain zeal, beneficence and all thoughts about pleasing God will end. If you put out a fire, there will be no light, no warmth; if you extinguish zeal, the soul will not be inclined to any good thing, and its life in God will grow completely cold,” St. Theophan the Recluse says.

So then, an active faith increases love, and gives strength to hope. It suffices for us to recall St. Seraphim of Sarov; all of his life was lived in the joy of the risen Christ, and he greeted everyone who came to him at any time of the year or of the day with the comforting words, “My Joy, Christ is Risen!”

Dearly beloved in the Lord, Fathers, brothers, and sisters of the holy, much-suffering Orthodox Church of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, I direct to you the triumphant words of our faith, Christ is Risen! And mutually responding to you in turn, I proclaim, Truly He is Risen! And my prayerful and ardent desire for you is to find this grace-filled Paschal joy on this auspicious and holy day!

Lowly
Valenine,
Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir
Pascha, 2006
Suzdal

Russia Jouns Ecumenical Carnaval

2006-04-13T01:25:00.000-07:00

By Alexander Soldatov, The Moscow News

We have not seen the like of this since the Soviet era: More than 20 representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) attended the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) at Porto Allegre, Brazil, February 14 through 23. At this inter-religious forum, Orthodox Russians discussed not only theological and humanitarian issues. Their mission also had a clear political agenda.

Background The ROC entered the world's largest ecumenical organization, uniting 350 churches, in 1961, on explicit orders from the country's ruling authorities. The incumbent patriarch, Alexy II, at that time a young bishop, was a member of the Moscow delegation at the General Assembly in New Delhi, where the ROC was formally admitted to the WCC.

In its reports, the KGB's Fifth Directorate, created especially to control religious activities in the country, liked to highlight its agents' "success stories" at the WCC. Indeed, the WCC was ideally suited for the propaganda of the Soviet Union's "peace-loving foreign policy." The organization, created to pique the Vatican, mainly united churches from developing countries, proclaiming leftist slogans. On the initiative of Soviet religious figures, the WCC regularly condemned "NATO's aggressive policy," neocolonialism, multinationals, and so on and so forth.

Church dissidents criticized the ROC leadership not only for the overpoliticization of the ecumenical movement. Suffice it to look at the photos and video footage of WCC events to understand how incompatible WCC membership was with Orthodox Christianity. Consider, for example, Archbishop Kirill (Gudnyaev) at the WCC General Assembly in Vancouver in 1983 taking part in the ceremony of erecting a pagan idol. Eight years later, in Canberra, he was pictured holding the Gospel at an ecumenical liturgy with a woman priest. Joint prayers and services with the non-Orthodox are prohibited by Church canons (specifically Canons of Apostles 10 and 45). The New York-based Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), which even anathematized ecumenism, accused the Moscow Patriarchy of breaching Church laws. The proactive propaganda conducted by the ROCOR in Russia in the early 1990s caused a crisis of ecumenism within the ROC which mulled plans of pulling out of the WCC, with only three Russian delegates being sent to the General Assembly in Harare in 1998.

The WCC leadership was scared, seeking compromise with the ROC and setting up a commission on WCC reform, which would allow the Orthodox to exercise the right of veto when voting on most essential issues. Meanwhile, the ROCOR is gradually reuniting with the ROC, so those who once anathematized ecumenism will soon join the WCC.

Problems, Conflicts Nonetheless, it would be premature to talk about "ecumenical renaissance" within the ROC. On the one hand, Alexy II receives the WCC general secretary and spotlights his "rich ecumenical past," while Metropolitan Kirill goes to Porto Alegre to pay tribute to the "lofty assembly." On the other hand, the selfsame Metropolitan Kirill attacks globalization, liberalism, and religious syncretism, while ROC print outlets publish his anti-ecumenical pamphlets. Father Vsevolod Chaplin, Metropolitan Kirill's deputy, recently published a satirical code of new ecumenical commandments, patterned after the biblical commandments, including these: "Thou shalt observe the Sabbath with Jews and Fridays with Muslims. On Sundays thou shalt go to the beach;" "Thou shalt not covet anything that is at odds with pluralism;" "Blessed are the pacifists for they are protected by armies;" and "Blessed are the oppressed in any sphere whatsoever for theirs is the Kingdom of Mass Media." His sarcastic view of ecumenism did not prevent Father Vsevolod from organizing his own road show at the assembly and making a politically correct report.

No, the ROC today is not what it was 15 years ago, but the WCC has changed little. Documents from the latest assembly are still marked by the same "left-wing infantile disorder" [reference to a work by Vladimir Lenin. - Ed.] and contain the same old calls for syncretism. Even a representative of the Orthodox Church - His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of the Great House of Cilicia - told the Port Alegre congress: "Christ is present in different religions under different names." By tradition, a joint prayer service was conducted to the sounds of Indian tambourines, attended by representatives of all eastern churches except the ROC. Yet a communique of the WCC Reform Commission, which was signed by the ROC, says that a call to joint prayer service still has priority.

Successes and Setbacks of Church Diplomacy Members of the ROC delegation made no secret of the fact that their mission in Brazil was linked with Russia's special interests in Latin America. This immediately evokes President Putin's statement about Russia's strategic partnership with Brazil and its intention to lobby for Brazil's status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Brazilian President Lula was given a rousing reception by Assembly delegates, but he also had informal meetings with ROC representatives, pledging support for ROC parishes in his country. While the Assembly was in session, Metropolitan Kirill consecrated the Church of St. Zinaida in Rio de Janeiro where more and more wealthy Russians are coming. The ROC "foreign minister" conducted another divine service at a Russian church in Sao Paulo.

The ROC's foreign-church interests and the Kremlin's foreign policy interests are becoming increasingly homogeneous, as the Russian foreign minister recently said in so many words when visiting the St. Nicholas Cathedral in Vienna. Few are surprised by the fact that the Russian Embassy in France has sued the Constantinople Patriarchy over an Orthodox cathedral in Nice. If the foreign policy interests of the Church and the State are so intertwined, isn't it time to think about creating a special body like the Soviet-era Council for Religious Affairs that would coordinate interaction in this important sphere?

Could such a body, by providing Church diplomats professional advice, have prevented some diplomatic lapses that occurred in the ROC delegation's work in Porto Alegre? The Assembly's final resolution says that peaceful civilians faced with the threat of annihilation should be given the right to ask for external intervention and protection. According to Walter Altman, a WCC Program Guidelines Committee moderator, the authors of the document referred to, among other things, the situation of noncombatants in Chechnya and other trouble spots in the post-Soviet area. A special statement on the threat of nuclear proliferation says that one fundamental provision of the NPT, whereby countries possessing such weapons must not transfer nuclear technology to countries that do not have them, has now been breached in a certain part of the world. Was it not a reference to Russia's support for Iran's nuclear program?

Otherwise, the General Assembly at Porto Alegre was marked by general revelry and a carnival-like atmosphere. Informal contacts in chat rooms and at presentations were interspersed with concerts and dancing prayers. Colorful marches by Assembly delegates were devoted to the poor, social and sexual minorities, children, and disabled invalids. Not only ecumenical youth but also venerable bishops and pastors could be observed marching under psychedelic banners the color of the rainbow. The rainbow could be seen both in assembly halls and at ecumenical services. The rainbow is the WCC symbol of tolerance and openness.

At the closing session of the Assembly, the delegates passed several resolutions (on water shortages in Africa, observance of human rights in combating terrorism, and rapprochement with other religions) and elected a new 150-member Central Committee. The Orthodox Christians at the apex of the WCC pyramid will be represented by Albanian Archbishop Anastasy, a nominee of the Constantinople Patriachy, which is hostile toward the ROC.

ROAC Church of St. Olga in Zheleznovodsk Given Over to Stavropol Diocese of the MP With Help From Cossacks and OMON

2006-04-09T08:28:00.000-07:00

(Portal-credo.ru – Vertograd, Zheleznovodsk)

At about 9:00 AM on Monday, April 3rd, the Church of St. Olga, which belongs to the ROAC (Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church), was transferred by officers of the court to the authority of the Stavropol and Vladikavkaz Diocese of the MP. This information was given to a reporter for Portal-Credo.Ru during his conversation with one of the priests of the ROAC Orthodox community there, Archpriest George Novakovsky.

According to him, approximately five hundred parishioners of St. Olga’s Church, together with the community’s clergy, Frs. Anatoly, Roman, and George Novakovsky, assembled at about 7:00-8:00 AM in order to serve a supplicatory prayer service. The parishioners did not wait for the court officers since office workers of the court had earlier told community representatives that the officers might come at any time during the course of the day. Nevertheless, at 8:00 AM, Cossacks from the town of Mineral Waters arrived, which began to force their way into the church. However, the parishioners formed a human barricade and would not let them get through.

Fr. George remarked that the MP Diocese had purposely invited Cossacks from Mineral Waters since the Cossacks from Zheleznovodsk had refused to be involved in any action against the most well-known and largest Orthodox community of the ROAC in town. After the Cossacks failed to take immediate control of the church, police officers and members of the OMON (paramilitary police), together with officers of the court, arrived. They forced the parishioners and the Cossacks out of the way, and the three priests—the Novakovsky brothers—and their wives, who had remained in the church, ceased opposing the representatives of the court and turned over the church keys to the bailiff. The bailiff in turn gave them to Vasiliy Chechil, representative of the MP Diocese of Stavropol.

According to Fr. George, the rector of the Church of the Holy Protection of the Mother of God in Kavminvody, Fr. Ilya Ageev, has been named as the new rector of St. Olga’s Church. Archpriest George Novakovsky made a special point of saying that when it came to the question of removing the furnishings from the church, the community had been willing to leave the icon screen in the church, but the MP’s representative said that they had their own icon screen.

The police in Zheleznovodsk, who are well acquainted with the community led by the Novakovsky’s, offered the use of a vehicle to the parishioners for moving the church furnishings. After all of the icons and other furnishings were moved, the parishioners and clergy of St. Olga’s Church marched in procession to Fr. George’s home, where the parish will continue to meet after their eviction.

The ROAC community, which had been using the church built by the Novakovsky brothers for the last sixteen years, is planning on petitioning the Zheleznovodsk city administration for a parcel of land where they can build another church center, especially now that relations between the ROAC community and the Zheleznovodsk city administration have improved since Victor Lozovoy replaced the MP sympathizer Anatoly Zubtsov as mayor. According to Fr. George, Lozovoy had been promising from the start that the church would not be taken away from the parishioners.

We remind our readers that what took place on April 3rd, was nothing other than the fulfillment of the decisions handed down by the Stavropol and Krasnodar (arbitrazhny) courts concerning the transfer of the buildings of St. Olga’s Church to the jurisdiction of the Stavropol Diocese of the MP. In the fall of 2005, the judges had confirmed the claims of the Stavropol Diocese of the MP to property belonging to the ROAC, and had given the parishioners until the spring of 2006 to cede their property.

Mertopolitav Valentinn admitted to hospital

2006-03-27T03:12:00.000-08:00

Mertrpolitan Valentinn of Suzdal and Vladimir, First-Hierarch of ROAC, was admitted to hospital on Mach 21. He has problems with his right leg now. Doctors had to amputate his big toe and some part of the left foot due to bone necrosis in February. Most of the time since September 2006 Metropolitan Valentine has to spend in hospitals due to crucial exacerbation of diabetes.

Monastic Vows Taken in Suzdal

2006-03-27T03:09:00.000-08:00

(Suzdal Diocesian Bulletin – NFTU – Vertgograd, Suzdal)

On March 16 in the Tsar-Constantine Cathedral, ryasophor priestmonk Fr Jonas Rosokha was brought into the monasticism with the blessing of Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir. The priestmonk was tonsured by Archbishop Theodore of Borisovosk and Otradnoe, secretary of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, after Vespers. The new hieromonk was named Mark after St.Mark of Thrace and was registed to the brotherhood of the monastery of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Suzdal.

Hieromonk Mark was born in 1957 in Tomsk. In 1997 he became a parishioner of the ROCOR's Siberian diocese. In the same year he was tonsured and ordained a priest by Bishop Evtikhy. In 1999, Father Jonas was accepted in The Suzdal Diocese of tbe Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church and served in the city of Armavir in the South of Russia. He will continue to serve in Armavir.

Four New Nuns of ROAC Tonsured in St.Petersburg

2006-03-13T04:34:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd, St.-Petersburg)

Four nuns were tonsured on March 10 by Hegumen Gregory in the church of St.Elizabeth in St.-Petersburg.

Alevtina Nikinina was tonsured with the name Elizabeth after the Patron of the church. She was born in 1970; she graduated the Library Department of St-Petersburg University of Culture.

Maria Ustrizhitsrakya was tonsured with the name Joanna after St.John Kassian. She was born in 1971; she is a restore by education.

Rassopher Nun Martha (Senina) was tonsured after St.Kassia of Constantinople. She was born in 1972; she graduated the Department of Philology of the University of St.-Petersburg. Nun Kassia is the author of more then 10 church services, including the ones to St.Philaret of New York and Holy Nuns of Diveevo that were glorified in the ROAC. She researches the history of Byzantine and writes a book about St.Kassia of Constantinople.

Olga Mitrenina was tonsured after St.Xenia of St.-Petersburg. She was born in 1968. She has PhD degree in linguistics and teaches at the department of Mathematical Linguistics in the University of St.-Petersburg.

All of the new-tonsured nuns know church ustav and can read and sing at the service.

Nun Kassia and nun Xenia are the members of editorial board of Vertograd

Metropolitan Valentine of ROAC had an amputation

2006-02-20T05:39:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd, Moscow)

Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, First-Hierarch of ROAC, had a surgery on February 6 in Moscow Hospital on Pirogov Street. Due to bone necrosis doctors had to amputate his big toe and some part of the left foot.

Metropolitan Valentine was first admitted to the endocrinology department of this hospital in September 2005 after sudden exacerbation of his diabetes. At the end of October he moved to Switzerland where he spent more than a month in Swiss Hospital near Geneva. Skin transplantation was made there, but it turned to be unsuccessful, so that his second leg was affected. He returned to Moscow Hospital on Pirogov Street is the middle of December. Metropolitan Valentine will have to stay at that hospital at least till the end of February.

Web-blog of ROCOR(L) priest closed for the appeal to assault participants of gay-parade in Moscow

2006-02-20T05:38:00.000-08:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru - Vertograd, Moscow)

Web-blog of Father Dimitry Kaplun, ROCOR(L) priest in Birobidzhan (Siberia), was closed by the administration of LiveJournal.Com on the 17th of February. The reason was the message of Father Dimitry dated February 16, where he blessed to resist gay-parade in Moscow by any means, “including physical violence”.

“They say, Moscow authorities allowed gay-parade in Moscow? I, as an Orthodox priest, completely openly and officially bless with the Name of God those who is planning to scatter this detestable-to-God demonstration or to resist this parade by any means, including physical violence. If it violates the laws of Russian Federation, than Orthodox Russians should not be afraid to violate the law when it contradicts the Law of God”, writes Father Dimitry, who lives in one of the most distant regions of Russia. The appeal in his LiveJournal got several thousand replies in 24 hours and got the first line in the rating of religious web sites of Russia.

Metropolitan Valentine Accomplished his Cure in Swiss Hospital and Returned to Suzdal

2005-12-21T22:48:00.000-08:00

The First Hierarch of the ROAC Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir has accomplished his cure in Swiss Hospital that lasted for a month and a half. He returned to Moscow on December 15, and next day he arrived to Suzdal.

Metropolitan Valentine has not participated the administrating of the ROAC for more than 3 months because of the serious exacerbation of the symptoms of diabetes, that affected him shortly after the Congress of ROAC and Synodal meeting at the beginning of September. Most of the time afterwards Metropolitan Valentine spent in the diabetic clinics in Moscow and Geneva. The treatment caused some positive effect, but his foot is still not cured and his sight is severely failing.

On December 10, Saturday, Metropolitan Valentine presented at the All-Night Vigil at the house chapel of St. George in the suburbs of Geneva. The service was performed by the rector of Moscow parish of ROAC Protopriest Michael Ardov. Next day, December 11, Metropolitan Valentine served the Divine Liturgy together with Father Michael Ardov. Reader George Malko was ordained to deaconate at the service. Deacon George lives in France, but he will serve in the parish of St. George in the suburbs of Geneva.

After his return to Suzdal Metropolitan Valentine is planning to complete the sale of the Diocesan House, that is registered as his private property. According to Larisa Mayorova, the Director of the Bureau of Inventory of Suzdal, the house is offered for sale for $1.000.000. Though the Bureau of Inventory expects that the house will be sold for the lower price. ROAC Convent, Suzdal Diocesan College, the Museum of White Army and the rooms for pilgrims are presently located in the house.

Archpriest Michael Ardov. Important Explanation Concerning Anastasia Schatiloff

2005-11-18T22:57:00.000-08:00

It has come to my attention that there have been some statements made on the internet to the effect that the recently reposed Anastasia Georgievna Schatiloff (née Countess Grabbe) "repented" on her deathbed, and received Holy Communion from one of the priests belonging to the part of the ROCOR that is headed by Metropolitan Laurus.

In connection with this, I consider it my duty to make an explanation. The deceased was the faithful progeny and assistant of her father—Bishop Gregory. And this ever-memorable hierarch was one of the founding fathers of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. Several months before his repose, Vladyka Gregory visited Moscow and Suzdal, prayed together with us, preached sermons, and took Holy Communion in our churches, and furthermore, gave instructions that he did not want any of the bishops of the Church Abroad present at his funeral.

During the last years of her life, the late Anastasia Georgievna attended services and took Holy Communion at the St. Nicholas parish of our Church, whose rector is Protopresbyter Vladimir Shishkoff.

As far as her relationship with the Lavr-ite branch of the ROCOR is concerned, one can get an idea about it from reading some of the last issues of "Church News," of which she was the publisher.

I have the May issue before me, #5. Here we find an item under the heading "The Paschal Epistle of Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires," which ends with the following words, "the Moscow Patriarchate is not a church, but a collection of heretics."

Then follows this item: "News concerning the unification of the ROCOR(L) and the Moscow Patriarchate." In this article, it mentions that several of the ROCOR bishops and clergymen took part in the detestable "All-Russia Council," at which a certain statement was adopted concerning the "Great Victory Achieved During World War II." Anastasia Georgievna’s take on it was, "By their presence at this meeting, the representatives of the ROCOR(L) ended up taking part in celebrating the triumphant victory of Communism!"

Now, let’s take a look at the June issue, #6 of "Church News." There is an article entitled "Changes for the Better" there that starts out by saying "the internet version of IZVESTIA newspaper for May 31st, analyzing the process of unification between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate, reveals, among other things, that during a meeting, which took place at the end of May, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR came to the conclusion that big changes have taken place over the last fifteen years in Russia: "In light of the numerous positive developments in church life, and in life in general in Russia, the question concerning mutual relations between that part of the Russian Orthodox Church which is abroad, and the church inside Russia, stands starkly before us."

Further on, Anastasia Georgievna produced eloquent examples of the "positive developments," for example: "…a spontaneous desire for the "canonization" of a whole series of extremely dubious personalities can be seen in the Moscow Patriarchate, including Ivan the Terrible, (who was married seven times, murdered his own son, and sent Malyuta Skuratov to smother St. Philip of Moscow to death for daring to speak out about the atrocities of the tsar), and Rasputin (whose "icon" is even myrrh-streaming). To top it all off, there was an "icon" of Stalin, which was posted on a blog on the internet on June 5th. In this icon, this outcast of the human race was depicted wearing bishop’s vestments, complete with omophorion, and holding a Gospel book together with a sword!"

In the last sentence of this publication she writes: "Isn’t it amazing how the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, under the leadership of Metropolitan Laurus, can suddenly see "positive developments" in the church life of the Moscow Patriarchate today, and consistently seek to be united to it?"

After this item in "Church News," comes a large body of material under the heading "Publication of Some of the Documents of the Unification Committees." From here, I will cite only the first and last sentences: "The ROCOR(L) flock have been waiting for a long time now for the promised publication some of the documents worked out at the joint meetings of the MP and ROCOR committees concerning the question of unification between the "two parts of the one Russian Orthodox Church." Finally, on June 21st, 2005, the committee kept its promise. The only thing that can be said about the decisions that this committee reached is summed up by the words of one of our Russian proverbs: "Same old soup, just watered down a little." "And so, it is without any doubt that, by betraying the principles it held for eighty years, the representatives-traitors of the Church Abroad have not only done irreparable harm to it, but are actually helping to quash the few signs of life that are yet to be found within the Moscow Patriarchate! The present bishops and clergy of the Church Abroad have apparently forgotten the words of the Gospel: ‘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 depths of the sea.’ (Matthew 18:6)"

In issue #7—alas!—the last issue of "Church News," Anastasia Georgievna devoted three items to the shameful topic of the "process of unification." In the first one, under the heading, "Finally, a Word of Truth," the eloquent opinion of Dimitry Kaplun, a clergyman of the ROCOR(L) who lives in Russia, is proffered.

Another item starts off: "Problems of Orthodoxy in Russia:" "Under this rather all-encompassing headline, the newspaper "Rus’ Pravoslavnaya" #1-2, 2005, published an excellent article by Michael Nazarov, "On the Deception of the Elect and the Church of the Last Times." The almost full-page article appears as a rather substantial and legitimate critique of the leader of the recent politics of the ROCOR(L). Below the photograph of Metropolitan Laurus there is a caption which reads: "Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the ROCOR: Spiritual Leader of Unification, or Undertaker of the Church Abroad?"

After this, there is an item called "Two Episcopal Interviews," referring to two bishops of the ROCOR—Mark and Cyril. Here is the last paragraph of the publication: "The Compromise Committee seems to be completely unimpressed by the fact that the Communist authorities and all who cooperated with it were first anathematized by Patriarch Tikhon, and subsequently by the Catacomb Church on two different occasions. And these anathemas apply to the Moscow Patriarchate as well. The Compromise Committee is equally unimpressed by the fact that the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, after every election of a "Patriarch" of Moscow, declared them to be illegitimate on the basis of Rule #30 of the Holy Apostles, since they had received their positions of authority in the Church through the auspices of secular authorities. It was only after Metropolitan Vitaly became the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, that the Council of the Church Abroad made no reaction at all to the "election" of Alexei Ridiger—agent Drozdov!

From the item entitled "More on the ‘Process of Unification’ through the Eyes of the Moscow Patriarchate," we read the last statement made by Anastasia Georgievna on this topic: "…we see the shameful capitulation of the ROCOR, which has blatantly abandoned the conditions it had formerly maintained for unification with the Moscow Patriarchate! Not to mention that Metropolitan Laurus and his Synod have rejected the ideology which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had held for 80 long years!"

I repeat, Anastasia Georgievna was a faithful daughter to her father, and he, as everyone knows, never betrayed his principles. Shortly before her death, she made her confession to and received Holy Communion from one of our priests, Igumen Andrei (Maklakov).

Her funeral, which was performed at Novo Diveyevo by three clergymen of the ROCOR known as leading proponents for "reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate." In light of what has been said above, seems like a mockery and blasphemy. Her eulogy was delivered by Archpriest George Larin, a man who was branded by Anastasia Georgievna as a participant in the "celebration of the victory of Communism." (I have in mind here the item cited above from issue #5 of "Church News").

The dead are not able to speak out and protest from their graves. Different politicians have always taken advantage of this fact. And here, we must not pass over without mentioning the recent blasphemous incident, which took place in Moscow, and here I’m talking about the "reburial" of the remains of [White Army Genetal] Anton Denikin and of [Russian Philosopher] Ivan Ilyin. And so, the way is completely open for Mr. Larin and Co. to go to the Moscow Patriarchate, under the red banner of Putin’s new Russia.

Good riddance!

Letter of Hegumen Gregory (Lourie) to the Synod of Bishops of ROAC, September 20, 2005

2005-11-17T02:41:00.000-08:00

Your Eminencies,

It was Internet where I got to know the report of your meeting # 52 on September 5th, 2005. In the course of it some resolutions were adopted. They are concerning me and are of such kind that I should be waiting for a full version of the report or at least an extract from it from you. A considerable amount of time has already elapsed since September 5th but I haven’t got anything yet. I heard however some opinions of those bishops who took part in the mentioned meeting and I am bound to admit that the spread version of the report is the original one. The content of it is of such kind that I think I can respond on it without waiting for a paper copy with original signatures of bishops or an extract with original signature of the secretary.

Despite some problems with report delivering, I should to say that the quality of our synodic records management is becoming better in comparison with the previous session of the Episcopal Synod of ROAC on July 20th. At least canonical accusations are appearing with numbers of canons now (how featly they are quoted is another question) and there are no more names of those who couldn’t be on the meeting in the list of participants and even in the signatures on the report; besides I got a written confirmation from Synod that I am elevated to the rank of hegumen at last (though at the previous session on July 20th I was simply a "hieromonk" for both Synod and my diocesan bishop and in the period between July 20th and September 5th I got only one church reward, it was forbiddance to serve).

These positive signs testify that somehow we are managing to lead a constructive dialogue with Synod and it will definitely help us to build our church government in accordance with canonical laws of the Orthodox Church. This dialogue should be continued and expanded. That is the reason of my appealing to the Episcopal Synod in this letter. It goes without saying that I’ll have to speak about problems instead of achievements in it. But without open discussion we’ll never get chance to overcome them.

First of all I would like to clear up the meaning of the events happened at the meeting of the Episcopal Synod of ROAC on September 5th, 2005 and of my present answer.

I’ll start with the last one. Despite the fact that on the meeting of Synod an accusation was brought against me, with which I personally don’t agree, my letter isn’t an appeal and I am not even going to write one in future. The reason is that the procedure of appealing is a juridical procedure and it is meaningful at disputing a resolution made during a juridical procedure.

But Synod meeting on September 5th didn’t resemble a juridical procedure at all. I won’t specify the features of such a procedure here because it’s unnecessary, besides I’ve done it already in my letter to the Most Reverend Metropolitan Valentine, dated at August 18th, 2005. That meeting didn’t have any of them any way. At the meeting on September 5th instead of the juridical procedure there was only an administrative one: bishops got together and passed a resolution. The problem is that such a resolution can’t be passed as an administrative one. In contrast with resolution concerning forbiddance to serve which can be passed administratively in some cases, resolution concerning defrocking, according to canons can be passed only through juridical procedure, the course of which is also determined by canons. If such a resolution is still passed administratively, then it won’t have any canonical power for the accused and its canonical meaning will act exclusively against the bishops who made it. That’s why if I decided to make an appeal now, I would take part in Synod’s breaking canonical laws.

It’s especially difficult for me to understand why Episcopal Synod broke the rule which is definitely familiar to it, the one about citation of the accused person (the 74th Apostolic canon which is applied to priests according to the 29th canon of Carthaginian Synod; more about Byzantine treatment of this norm see in Balsamon’s commentary of the 74th Apostolic canon). I got to know about my accusation only on September 8th and only from accidental messages on Internet. It is this violation, made against me by Episcopal Synod that really surprises me, because it can’t be explained by simple lack of knowledge of canons. We all remember a story about former protopriest Osetrov’s citation in 2001: a protodeacon and an archimandrite (the present bishop Irinarch, member of Synod) were sent to his place then in order to serve him a writ. They bravely tried to hand it in, despite the fact that they were met by the wife of protorpiest who threw the contents of the child’s pot out on them. It’s difficult to believe that after such a deed they manage to forget about its aim, i.e. about the rule of citation of the accused.

So, instead of being under trail, I happened to be under an anticanonical administrative procedure. I’ll explain the said above on the example. Imagine several people (some of them have right to be judges, some of them not) got together and passed a sentence upon somebody. Instead of carrying out a juridical procedure they spent time having a nice conversation. Of course, such a behavior can and should be appraised according to the laws, and that is why, I consider myself obliged to apply to Episcopal Synod of ROAC in the present letter.

The following three subjects will be discussed further in it:

- my answer on the official accusation against me,
- the style of records management in our Synod,
- important conclusions concerning the future of our church government.

1. The answer on the official accusations of the Episcopal Synod.

With no regard to the canonical status of the session of the Episcopal Synod on September 5th, I have to admit that on this meeting some accusations were brought against me by church authorities and I am bound to respond according to canonical laws (90th canon of Carthaginian Synod).

In the report of the meeting there are a lot of different accusations against me, but the indictment is based only on some of them, in which I am accused officially. It’s possible to believe that all the accusations against me brought to the Episcopal Synod were thoroughly examined. I dare to make a conclusion that those accusations that Episcopal Synod didn’t include in its verdict were considered unfounded, or at least not proved. I have to thank the Episcopal Synod for a good job and answer only on the items of the verdict.

I would like to quote them at full length.

1. Notwithstanding the fact that Hegumen Gregory (Lourie) repeatedly spread the errors of Hieroschema-monk Anthony Bulatovich concerning his teaching of "imyabozhiye" and "imyaslaviye" (name-worshipping), the Synod of Bishops repeatedly summoned him to give an answer. Hegumen Gregory more than once promised, orally and in writing, to cease his internet activities, and then continued it anyway, ignoring the ruling of the Synod of Bishops. As a result, the Synod of Bishops suspended him from serving on July 7/20, 2005, # 51.

2. From the moment of his suspension until the present time, Hegumen Gregory has been organizing "protests" addressed to the Synod of Bishops and Metropolitan Valentine. In the name of several Russian and foreign "experts," presumably indifferent to Orthodoxy, who defend the position of the suspended Fr. Gregory, they have condemned the Synod and threatened it with "initiating the breakup" of the ROAC. The 55th Apostolic Canon says: "If any Clergyman should insult the Bishop let him be deposed."

3. Without the knowledge and blessing of his Ruling Bishop, the suspended Hegumen Gregory traveled around, not only the cities of Russia, but even abroad, leaving his parish without pastoral care, and "hired" a priest of the MP to perform sacraments in the church and in the morgue. Canon 39 of the Holy Apostles says: "Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the consent of the Bishop."

4. In his sermons, the suspended Hegumen Gregory permitted himself to utter anti-church and anti-canonical comments, calling the holy icons nothing more than "religious pictures, and that blessing them is superfluous," repeating the iconoclastic heresy.

5. Through his admirers and followers, the suspended Hegumen Gregory (Lourie) budiroval [Translator’s note: a verb with a not very clear meaning, obviously connected with French bouder; see discussion below] the masses of the faithful in the parishes of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Suzdal, pitting them against the Synod of Bishops and Metropolitan Valentine, thereby disrupting parish life. Canon 18 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council commands: "Whosoever shall conspire against his Bishop, or his fellow clergymen, hatching plots against them, he shall forfeit his own rank altogether."

6. In the last letter that he addressed to the Synod of Bishops, Hegumen Gregory threatened to "TEAR THE ROAC APART" if the ukase concerning his suspension remains in force, and that even if the ukase is rescinded, the breakup of the Church was inevitable.

Further these accusations are summarized in the following statement:

Taking into consideration the fact that forbidden Hegumen Gregory [Translator’s note: the phrase "forbidden Hegumen " translated literally as it is in Russian] persisted in his outrage violating the monastic vows and the priestly oath, and according to the Church Canons and Apostolic Canons "2nd, 55th, 39th; and also according to the statement of the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, can. 18: "Whosoever shall conspire against his Bishop, or his fellow clergymen, hatching plots against them, he shall forfeit his own rank altogether."

I’ll answer separately on every item of the indictment:

1. I’ve already responded on the accusations put forward to justify my suspension in my letter to Metropolitan Valentine dated at August 18, 2005. My arguments weren’t confuted in the present report, they were simply ignored.

2. In the report they are accusing me in organizing some protests, but aren’t giving any proves of it, though in any legal proceedings, either in civil or church ones, the guilt should be proved, not the guiltlessness. Besides I can’t understand what is unlawful in "protests" from the ecclesiastical point of view. Some quotations form the letters in my support which are given in the report don’t contain anything anticanonical and I don’t really understand why they are called "protests". They are accusing me with reference to the 55th Apostolic canon as a cleric who "vexed" a bishop. It seems that the composer of the accusation understands this rule in the following way: every cleric who arouses a feeling of vexation in a bishop should be defrocked. Such an interpretation would be too broad. I don’t know the exact aims of the composer and I won’t begin any canonical dispute with him. I just want to note that reference to the 55th Apostolic canon without any definition of the corpus delicti is incomprehensible. In traditional Byzantine interpretations of this canon the insult means the same notion as in civil courts. It’s especially clear from the Balsamon’s interpretation (from a juridical point of view an insult isn’t everything that makes a person feel insulted). To show that you are vexed isn’t enough for making a claim for protection of honor and dignity. You should have arguments which are as serious as those that are used in civil trails.

3. I have to say the same about the 39th Apostolic canon used in this item of accusation. We still don’t know what in composer’s opinion this canon means when it prohibits to make "anything" without bishop’s concern. Can’t he really do "anything"? In universally adopted understanding this canon doesn’t mean that all cleric’s movements (especially when he is absorbed in secular activity with frequent trips) should be approved by bishop. Byzantine commentators (Zonaras, Aristenus, Balsamon) warned against literal understanding of this canon (see especially Balsamon’s interpretation) and explained that it is applicable only in the situations concerning bishop’s rights which can’t be completely entrusted to clerics (penance, excommunication, dealing with Church’s real estate, for example); clerics can use them only within limits established by the bishop. In the same item of the indictment I’m accused in making trips with harmful consequences for my parish’s life. But this accusation isn’t proved also. In the report of the meeting there aren’t any documents or testimonies of witnesses (complaints) which certify that my absence from the parish was harmful for it. Besides in the text I’m called "suspended Hegumen Gregory", as if I did it all after forbiddance to serve. What priest’s duties does a suspended cleric have? For some reasons I am also accused in "hiring" a priest of Moscow Patriarchy for performing some sacraments. The accusation isn’t proved again. I testify that in our church no priests of Moscow Patriarchy have been serving since August 15, 1997. Speaking about priests serving in different morgues of our city, may be they are "hired", but not by me.

4. Concerning my views on the icon veneration, you can read about them in a special chapter of my monograph about patrology that will be published in the nearest future. One can see clearly in the report that this accusation in iconoclastic heresy was made by bishop Geronty. Bishop Geronty’s texts, used at Synod meeting on September 5, are analyzed in detail in nun Marfa (Senina)’s letter dated at September 20, 2005 in which she also answered on the report of Episcopal Synod meeting on September 5 (§ 7 of nun Marfa’s letter; see also § 3). That’s why my answer will be short. As nun Marfa showed, Bishop Geronty’s criteria of iconoclastic heresy are so strict that by this term he may call heretic even the Seventh Ecumenical Council, not only sinful me. May be one of the ways to make the Orthodox world to meet a bit more seriously the reports of our Synod meetings will be to stop quoting in them Bishop Geronty.

5. I don’t understand completely an accusation in "boudering crowds" because of the word "bouder" which was somewhat new for me [Translator’s note: that is, "somewhat new" in Russian] and which I never met in canons. As I don’t have clear understanding of this term, I won’t assert that I never "boudered" anybody. But even taking it all into consideration, I don’t see any concrete facts or concrete description of the canonical corpus delicti according to the 18th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council which was quoted in this item. According to Byzantine interpreters (Zonaras, Aristenus, Balsamon) the canon is about some evil deeds against bishop which should be punished according to Civil law; it means that clerics against which such accusations are made and proved should be defrocked and brought under civil trial. If bishops think that I am guilty in devising some plan against one or all of them for committing a civil, not a church crime, they should appeal to civil legal institutions.

6. I’ll quote this item one more time: "Addressing Episcopal Synod in the last letter, Hegumen Gregory threatened to "TEAR THE ROAC APART" if the decree concerning his suspension remained in force, and even if the decree was rescinded, the breakup of the Church would be inevitable." I never wrote any letters to the Episcopal Synod and I conclude that the letter ostensibly written to the Episcopal Synod was actually my letter which I wrote to the ruling bishop, Metropolitan Valentine (on August 18, 2005). The phrase in brackets seemed to be a precise quotation, but there are no such words in my letter and there are no such thoughts either, which actually seem to me being rather strange ones. Even if I had such an opinion, according to this item I wouldn’t break any canons by it. I have to conclude that the author of the indictment writes here about something personal, not about the real situation.
The summarizing part of the indictment, at last. Apart from the repeating all that has been said in the previous six items, it contains three additional accusations: in violating "monastic vows", "priestly oath" and 2nd Apostolic canon (which was mentioned in the report for the first time).

They aren’t bringing forward any additional concrete facts that testify my breaking monastic vows and priestly oath, so I have to conclude that they are testified by all accusations rendered above.

As the accusations aren’t proved and often, as in case with "bouder" and the letter with the threat "to tear the ROAC apart" aren’t formulated in a sufficiently intelligible way, sometimes it’s even difficult to understand what is meant by the composer, so I would consider that the accusations in breaking monastic vows and priestly oath based on them are as groundless as the preceding ones.

Speaking about the accusation in breaking the 2nd Apostolic rule, it seemed paradoxical for me and even a little mystic. This rule is short and sounds in the following way: "Let one bishop consecrate presbyter and deacon and other clercs."

Thus, even theoretically this canon can be broken only by the bishop who wants to consecrate clerics not alone but with help of some other bishops, in the way that bishops themselves are to be consecrated. Historically this canon didn’t have a forbidding meaning; it simply set a way of cleric’s ordainment (see the previous 1st Apostolic rule: it regulates the ordainment of bishops, that should be done by two or three bishops, not by one). Mentioning of this rule could be considered a misprint if it wasn’t also cited in the concerning me Ukaz # 67 dated at September 9, 2005 by Metropolitan Valentine where he shortly summarized the indictment.

Even if Episcopal Synod indirectly alludes to the possibility of my being a bishop in future, so in this case I also can’t agree with the accusation. Church legal procedures don’t allow punishing for a non-committed crime even for "prophylaxis".

2. Text of Synod’s session report as a sign of confusion in our church government.

A small part of rather an extensive report of the meeting analyzed above gives us a clear notion of the chaotic style in which it’s written. To some extent, these problems with records management are reflecting our problems with church government. We were speaking about canons, or being more precise about their breaching up to now. And as we have just seen the references to canons appeared at some items of accusation at last and it should be appraised, though it doesn’t testify that bishops understand their meaning.

The latest Synodical resolutions were lacking not just canonical, but common sense, unfortunately.

Thus discussing a question about imyaslavie Metropolitan Valentine several times made mutually exclusive statements. At first he quoted Synodical description dated at December 3, 2001, where it’s said that problem of imyaslavie is in the competence of the future Council. Then he retells resolution made on May 18, 2002 (the full text of which wasn’t published officially), where it’s unexpectedly said that "in 1917-1918 All-Russian Church Council reprobated this question [Translator’s note: "…reprobated… question" is the exact formulation of the Russian original]." (i.e. question about imyaslavie) On the next page Metropolitan suddenly writes one more time, that Council in 1917-1918 didn’t manage to consider a problem of imyaslavie and in some pages he repeats this conclusion. It’s still unclear what in Metropolitan’s opinion Church Council decided in 1917-1918 – did it manage to "reprobate this question" or it simply hadn’t time to consider it. If we have confidence in his rendering of Synodical resolution made on May 18, 2002, then a question arouses, why such a historical nonsense (as if All-Russian Church Council officially reprobated imyaslavie) appeared in the text of resolution.

Since I don’t have an official version of that resolution, which some time ago was only partly given in press release for "Vetrograd" magazine, I can’t verify the precision of Metropolitan Valentine’s rendering. Theoretically I have to admit that it may be very low. Somewhere above we’ve already seen the example of rather an unreliable rendering of a common text made by Metropolitan Valentine.

However literally could he render the text of Synodical resolution made in 2002, text of the record made on September 5 clearly shows that Metropolitan Valentine contradicts himself in concrete and especially important for his argumentation facts, but he doesn’t notice it. If Metropolitan Valentine had any notion about what All-Russian Church Council had decided or hadn’t, such contradictions would be impossible. They appear only when a person is trying to use other’s argumentation without understanding it.

Whose argumentation is Metropolitan Valentine using in his treating of the problem of imyaslavie, given in the report of his speech then? I would allow myself to give rather a diffuse quotation of a key part of the speech not for analyzing, but for revealing of the source where he had taken it:

The New Martyr Bishop Basil Priluzhsky characterized the ecclesiasticaljuridical position of the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) thus: "At the present time, according to the preliminary court Decision of the Holy Synod of May 10-24, 1914, № 2 4136, as stated in the original wording of this Decision, which can be found in the Synodal archives under "Case of "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) (volume III, section 11. pages 444-449), confirmed by the decision of March 10, 1916, № 2 2670, anyone in Russia who stubbornly holds to the teachings of the "imyabozhniki" (nameworhippers) is placed under the Church’s lesser ban. They are banned from performing the Sacraments of the Church and from participating in them, having only the right be present at Church services. The clergy among them have the right to wear the riassa. It was left up to the diocesan bishops to soften or remove this punishment from those "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) only, who repented of their errors and asked the Church for forgiveness."

This decision of the Holy Synod has never been rescinded by anyone; neither by the All-Russian Local Council in 1917-1918, which did not have a chance to look at this question, nor by St. Patriarch Tikhon, who confirmed the suspension of the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers). It follows, therefore, that it is still in force and is still canonically binding for the Russian Church.

Patriarch Germanos V of Constantinople approved the April 5, 1913, decision of the Kinot (government of Mt. Athos-tr.) thereby confirming the decisions of the Holy Kinot of Mt. Athos by the Higher Church Authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Holy Synod of the Russian Church, in its epistle published on May 18, 1913, joined its voice to the decision of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople, which had condemned this new teaching as "blasphemous and heretical."

On August 27, 1913, the decision of the Holy Synod, № 7644, followed, according to which the heretics were called by the name of "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers), and were not even considered to be monastics until they exhibited complete and sincere repentance.

In his letter to the Holy Synod of December 11, 1913, Patriarch Germanos joined his voice to the measures adopted by the Higher Authority of the Russian Church toward the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers), and left any further juridical action against them up to it, since they were within the boundaries of the Russian Church.

On February 14-18, 1914, the Decision of the Holy Synod, № 1471, to convene an ecclesiastical court to hear the case of "those who stubbornly and consciously adhere to and disseminate false teaching" followed, which was assigned to the chancery of the Moscow Synod.

Schema-monk Anthony (Bulatovich), using his connections (through Gregory Rasputin), received support in certain secular circles, which, in turn, put pressure on the Emperor.

Outwardly, the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) looked like pious venerators of the Name of God, who were being persecuted for their especial piety. The holy Martyr Nicholas II, not being a theologian, and not having the time to delve into the question, but in accordance with his philanthropic nature and moved to sympathy towards those who passed themselves off as suffering for the Faith, stated that in his opinion it was essential to exonerate the Athonite exiles, and restore their rights to them.

The Moscow Synod Chancery Office, headed by Metropolitan Makary of Moscow, was in a state of confusion, as evidenced by two contradictory rulings, arrived at on the same day and at the same meeting held on May 7, 1914, and as reflected in two contradictory dispatches to the Synod on May 8, 1914, № 1142, and № 1143.

In the first dispatch, № 1142, the teaching of the imyabozhniki (nameworshippers) is confirmed as heresy ("new false-intellectualizing upon the names of God, ushered in by Schema-monk Ilarion, Anthony (Bulatovich) and those of like mind with them"); the second, apparently, is the expression of Metropolitan Makary’s bewildered state of mind, resulting in the appearance of a plan to send the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) who were insistent in their beliefs, to a monastery, and to "vacate the court case which had been brought against them." The plan was left up to the discretion of the Holy Governing Synod, which suddenly negated everything that had formerly been undertaken and maintained by the Higher Authority of the Church of Constantinople, by the Higher Authority of the Church of Russia, and by the very Moscow Synodal Chancery Office itself, and was turned down by the Holy Synod.

In the Decision of the Holy Synod (№ 4136 of May 10-24, 1914), there were but a few concessions made to the imyabozhniki (name-worshippers); they were allowed to continue wearing their riassas and to be present at church services without the right to take part in the Sacraments. However, a final judgment about them was postponed to a later time.

Thus, the claim made by the present day adherents of this false teaching, that their condemnation was rescinded by the Holy Governing Synod in 1914, is FALSE. The Holy Synod not only did not exonerate them and recognize "imyabozhiye" (name-worshipping) as "completely Orthodox" in 1914, but the Holy Synod stood unwaveringly in its position that "imyabozhiye" (name-worshipping) is indeed a heresy.

V. Zelentsov, in his report to the Council, points out that "Anthony (Bulatovich) falsified the Decision of the Holy Synod (№ 4136), having received an excerpt from it containing text taken from this decision, which distorted its meaning, and subsequently made use of this excerpt.

The author of the cited report made to the Local Council of 1917-1918, V. Zelentsov, calls it outright "deception." "To complete the picture of this deception, I would point out," says V. Zelentsov, "that concurrently with this, the Synodal chancery and its ‘boss,’ Sabler, chose to defer printing the genuine text of the May 10-24, 1914, Decision of the Holy Synod, № 4136, in the "Church Bulletin," evidently, to avoid exposing the contrived sense of this decision, as it stood in the ‘excerpt’ which Fr. A. Bulatovich had received." For his part, this was already the second instance of falsifying the sense of an official document condemning "imyabozhiye" and "imyaslaviye" (name-worshipping).

In the Archives concerning the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) there is a document (532), composed by all of the Russian monks on Mount Athos (4,500 monks). According to this document, (6, 11) in 1912, Fr. A. Bulatovich hid the real letter from the Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos sent to the Russian Skete of St. Andrew, condemning "imyabozhiye" (nameworshipping, as well as the revolt of the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) against the Orthodox Hegumen Ieronim. At that time, Fr. A. Bulatovich read another, falsified version of this letter, which justified the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers). (Theological Works № 33, 1997, page 196).

The final case against the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers) was transferred to the jurisdiction of the up-coming Local Council of the Russian Church of 1917-1918. However, the third session of this Council, owing to the circumstances of the time, was unable to complete its work on the heresy of the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers).

Such well known heretics/Sofists as Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Fr. Paul Florovsky, also took the side of the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers), which does not speak well for the "imyabozhniki" (name-worshippers). Inside the Moscow Patriarchate, known for its ecumenical policy of justifying any and all heresies, some voices, critical of this heresy, can be heard. Convincing arguments against "imyabozhiye" and "imyaslaviye" (nameworshipping) have appeared in the newspaper "Russian Herald" (№ 21-22, 2000) in an article by Peter Andrievsky under the headline "Are imyabozhniki (name-worshippers) Orthodox?" This question, it seems, is not so hard to answer if we remember that "imyaslaviye" (name-worshipping) was condemned long ago by the Holy Fathers, and that the heresy "imyabozhiye" (name-worshipping) is an extension of the heresy of Eunomios, which was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council.

It is misleading as well, when a group of "imyabozhniki" (nameworshippers) claims that Patriarch Tikhon defended Fr. A. Bulatovich. In actual fact, Fr. A. Bulatovich did not submit to his suspension from serving, and left the Russian Church unrepentant and suspended.

The fragment is literally repeated from the report of the former protopriest Osetrov (defrocked at Episcopal Synod of ROAC in 2001 and re-ordained in the MP soon after that) dated at December 4, 2000 and which he published in the special issue of "Suzdal Diocesian Herald", dedicated to Metropolitan Valentine (# 11, 2001; this issue was especially famous in Suzdal due to the material about the case in 1988 initiated against the future Metropolitan Valentine with accusations in homosexuality and then recent accusations in pedophilia.)

Metropolitan Valentine got Osetrov’s report either on the very December 4, 2000 or on the next day the latest. Being familiar with its content for so many years Metropolitan Valentine neither got things going nor acknowledged that Osetrov had been right. That led to the accusation of the last one. I’ve mentioned it at the beginning of this letter already.

That was the report where imyaslavie was strictly reprobated as "Eunomius’ heresy". However, Metropolitan Valentine repeats Osetrov’s words as his own now and at the same time he repeats, but in his own name, Osetrov’s detraction of the Tsar-Martyr, who seemed "being put under pressure" by Rasputin in such an important for the Church question.

What happened during these 5 years, from 2000 when Osetrov’s report was written and then rejected by Metropolitan Valentine and to 2005 when Metropolitan Valentine began to set up Osetrov’s thoughts for his own?

If Metropolitan Valentine changed his theological convictions, why then didn’t he confess in his former sympathy to "heresy"? And if he didn’t change his theological convictions, then which ones did he change?

I think it’s unnecessary to seek an answer on these questions. Applying to Episcopal Synod, I would like to draw attention not just to the concrete Metropolitan Valentine’s decisions but to the very style of his thinking which influences his making decisions and which is seen in the reports of his speeches.

On the one hand we see that Metropolitan Valentine doesn’t have clear understanding of his own words, on the other - he tries to set up for his own thoughts those that he took in the doubtful (if not to say troubled) sources, which he feels embarrassed to name openly.

One more part in the same Metropolitan Valentine’s speech attracted my attention. This time he named a source, which was the words of the former ROAC priest, Roman Pavlov, who left our Church. Fr. Roman, calling "many ROAC people" to witness in his turn, writes that they seemed to think "that Fr. Gregory rigged [the author was likely to mix this word with "institute" up, These words sound similar in Russian. Compare: "инсценировать" and "инициировать"] a trial against First-Hierarch on purpose, because he wanted to control him…"

Here Metropolitan Valentine is referring to Fr. Roman for the same reason as Fr. Roman was referring to anonymous "many ROAC people": it’s shameful to make such accusations in one’s own name. They are, so to say, too exotic. They are shameful because a person who makes them usually doesn’t believe in them seriously or he is afraid to look in other’s eyes as a person with paranoiac fears. I will not try to guess which of two shameful thoughts Metropolitan Valentine had, I will only try to persist that quotation of such an accusation definitely reflects some psychological needs of the accuser. Such an accusation doesn’t have any formal canonical sense, because nobody either tried to prove it, or to include into the indictment.

The examples of violation of logic in the text of the report can be multiplied, but the ones mentioned above are already enough for appraising a degree of confusion in our church government system as it can produce such reports.

Such government system couldn’t give an appropriate answer to the ultimatum presented by archbishop Anthony of Yaransk and Vyatka where he demanded to find a final decision of question on the Name of God. That’s why, a hierarch, who violated Synodical resolution made in 2001, - archbishop Anthony – was left without any punishment and American Clergy, operating through him, though were accused (and it should be said, through the same anticanonical procedure, that was used against me), but were never brought to trial.

3. Canonical grounds and real possibilities of church government.

Now our Church ill-wishers are only laughing at our declarations about the necessity of sticking to canons (the last one was made at the Diocesan Congress of Clerics and Laity on September 3-4, 2005 by Metropolitan Valentine). They think that this is naïve hypocrisy. But in the previous part of the letter I tried to show that the problem here is not in hypocrisy. It is much deeper. That mental activity confusion, which is seen in the report of the Synod meeting on September 5, makes impossible to follow logic laws at all, and it doesn’t matter what logic it will be: a common one or a canonical one.

In Synod resolution made on September 5 is seen a nearly symbolic closing of a circle: Metropolitan Valentine is using against me the same anticanonical procedure of defrocking, which was used against him in ROCOR. You can find differences only in small details, but the main actions are the same: instead of canonically justified court there is an antycanonical procedure, against which (in bishop Valentine’s case) were bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and Diocesan Congress of Suzdal Diocese of the ROCOR.
The very defrocking in bishop Valentine’s case was relatively canonical: at least his "fault" was obvious (serving after forbiddance to serve; this forbiddance, however, was made anticanonically). In my case they had only some absurd unproved ideas, which they didn’t even try to examine.

I am writing about it here not because I am attaching much importance to canonical accusations made against Russian bishops in ROCOR. My views on this problem are even more radical than the late bishop Gregory (Grabbe) had. I think that dealing with ROCOR we should follow canonical laws and stop paying attention to administrative decisions of Russian Church of the Synodical period. I expressed these views many times publicly and I won’t repeat them here. I am reminding about "Suzdalite" argumentation of the middle of the 1990s only because of the fact that now Metropolitan Valentine is openly violating it: then they were speaking that accusations against Russian bishops made by ROCOR didn’t have any power because they weren’t canonical. So, they were uncanonical. But from the administrative point of view there was nothing wrong in them: administratively Russian bishops were a part of ROCOR, that’s why they were under administrative power of Synod ROCOR. At the Synod as in pre-revolutionary Russian Church of Synodical Period, they think that juridical church procedure can be replaced by administrative one. That’s why Synod ROCOR, as it was considered in ROCOR, had right to take any decisions concerning Russian bishops.

Ten years ago Metropolitan Valentine following bishop Gregory (Grabbe)’s decision, disagreed, but that time it was a specific case, he was a central person then. Now he himself plays and makes Synod of ROAC to play the role that is extremely coincides with the role of Synod in his own case ten years ago.

Our opponents in ROCOR consider it to be of the same value as his signature under the acknowledgement of being a schism-maker and of being rightfully defrocked.

But, I’ll repeat, for us - faithful children of the Church of Russia - this means another thing: it means that our First-Hierarch has become a victim of serious mental fatigue.

Long before the present events, on December 12, 2000 I sent Metropolitan Valentine a strictly confidential letter with an enclosure, where I warned him against serious risk for our Church caused by recognition of even indirect administrative and anticanonical ways of governing which were worked out by the Russian Church of the Synodal period. I gave a good example of impossibility to preserve pre-revolutionary anticanonical traditions of governing: in such case we would have to admit that our Church is in schism from ROCOR. I remember that our First-Hierarch was then expressed very much by this letter. But it seems that in some years he had completely forgotten it. That’s why I won’t keep it in secret any more and attach it to the present letter to Episcopal Synod as an enclosure.

So for the very existence of our Church it is vitally important to observe the canonical laws of church government. The present church authorities, however, can’t provide this observance. The reason is not their ill will, but probably their pure physiology.

I guess a lot of people in our Church think: "What shall we do?" I would be glad to give an answer.

But we shouldn’t be in hurry answering serious questions. That’s why I don’t want to induce Episcopal Synod or anybody else in our Church to act resolutely. I even don’t want to ask about abolition of Synodal resolutions made on July 20 and September 5, because I consider it improper to divert bishops’ attention from the strategically important tasks to such relatively unimportant details.

That’s why at this time I am asking bishops only for one thing: to take thought.

Unworthy servant
of the Synod of Bishops,
Hegumen Gregory (Lourie)

Appendix
An appendix to a confidential letter from Hieromonk Gregory (Lourie) to archbishop Valentine of Suzdal, December 12, 2000.

What will be/is the basis of church law in our Church?

The aim of my writing isn’t a request for issuing new church government documents, but a wish for thorough understanding of the problem that was put forward by live itself without anybody’s intervention. Its solution won’t depend on those documents that we’ll accept. It will be sorely dependable on the clarity of our inner position.

I’ll remind you that nobody in ROCOR has ever aroused a question about the sources of the church law: they accepted the succession of the modern church from the pre-revolutionary church, and the modern church law from the pre-revolutionary church law as a natural one. For example, Bishop Gregory Grabbe often quoted not only canons, but the Regulations of the Spiritual Consistories (Ustavy duxovnyx konsistoriy, the main document at the Synodal period, passed in 1841 as an additional act of legislation to the Spiritual Regulation (Duxovnyj Reglament), 1721 and changed a little in 1883).

And how does our church looks on this matter? Nobody ever denied the succession of our law form the ROCOR law and consequently from this pre-revolutionary Synod (though nobody ever affirmed this officially). But in reality everything was different. The very formation of our church in 1990-1996 was a clear denial of Synodal norms when they were in contradiction with canons of Universal Church. Among variety of available examples I’ve chosen the most interesting ones: forcible dismissal of bishops as a way of punishment, Russian bishops’ accusation in 95 and defrocking in 96.

It wasn’t difficult for Bishop Gregory Grabbe to prove that all these actions were anticanonical and consequently unlawful. The last statement, however, isn’t obvious for Russian church tradition (I write tradition with a small letter because by this word I mean not the real Church Tradition, but a local tradition.). ROCOR actions against Russian priests, though being anticanonical, weren’t absurd or imposturous. They corresponded even to Bishop Gregory Grabbe’s favorite (in other cases) Regulations of the Spiritual Consistories. The absence of appropriate explanations from our side (from the side of Bishop Gregory Grabbe and our church) was and is one of the weak points of our canonical position.

For the Synodal period it was normal to solve all the questions concerning bishops without any canonical procedure. In ROCOR everything was the same. It is interesting that Bishop Gregory Grabbe never managed to find an example of a canonical trail against bishops both in Russian church of Synodal period and in ROCOR. He’d definitely give such an example if he could.

In Synodal period church had position of a ministry in the state (this is the basis that transforms all Synodal order into a church crime, not the absence of a Patriarch: all Synod resolutions were passed by the civil authorities as it usually happens in state ministry), and in such an organization the position of clerk depends only on the higher authorities and not on any independent courts. That’s why another order than the present one of the ROCOR was simply impossible in the Synodal period. Bishops were forced to submit themselves to an illegal violence either when decisions were made by the state institution – Synod, – or (in the case of the ROCOR) when they felt that their fault became obvious and they have no place to go. In other cases bishops remembered canons and didn’t submit. Metropolitans Eulogy and Platon behaved in the same way some time ago and were examples for us (our enemies in ROCOR always notice similarity in our behavior). The real reasons of bishops’ separating form ROCOR were seen in their deeds. Eulogy and Platon’s aims, as a matter of fact, happened to be dogmatic: their desire for independence from ROCOR disguised a distinction in their faith that was ecumenist one. As for our Church, in the present situation we don’t see anything wrong till now, but actually so little time has elapsed that it’s too early to make final conclusions.

Forcible retirement of bishops as a way of punishment - so rightfully laughed at by Bishop Gregory Grabbe – is also a normal act of Synodal "legal procedure". The last who was punished in that way before revolution was saint martyr Germogen (Dolganev) sent to the monastery for exposure of Rasputin in 1912. This church crime was committed by Synod by the order of Tsar. It’s known that Tsar confessed in this trespass and begged saint martyr’s pardon in 1918. After February revolution the same punishment was used against Saint Bishop Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow, who didn’t submitted and forbade to serve all Moscow priesthood which ceased to mention him in their services, and Saint Petersburg’s Metropolitan Pitirim, who submitted because, unlike Macarius, didn’t have any spiritual authority.

Synodal norms of church government were even formally considered more powerful than canons, passed by the Universal Church. Although they were never - it should be underlined – approved by the Eastern Patriarchs (they blessed only abolition of Moscow Patriarchy in 1721; Peter I and Feofan Prokopovich deceived them by concealing the existence of the Spiritual Regulation and the real meaning of the Synodal order, thus having transformed all church government into a state ministry).

So, if we, as ROCOR does, will accept the Synodal norms, then we shouldn’t speak about illegality of forcible dismissal of bishops and we shouldn’t dispute the principle (acting in any business office, though being unlawful in the Church of Christ): authorities both give power and take it away. According to Synodal laws, ROCOR hierarchs were right and we were wrong in all our quarrels with them.

But we are not ready to admit the dismissal of Russian bishops as lawful act, I dare say. Do we have any ground for it except of our wish? Bishop Gregory Grabbe didn’t give a full answer on this question. He abolished for himself the Synodal law only in one sphere of life, but didn’t explain, why he did so and if other Synodal norms should be still used. Thinking logically it’s obvious that all Synodal resolutions are equally unlawful, even when they are just in their meaning. At the best they have a juridical position of just verdicts made by a group of gangsters, something like Shariyah [traditional Muslim] courts in Chechnya.

It goes without saying that I don’t believe in God’s trial following any other trail, except a trail carried out according to the God’s will, fixed in dogmas and canons of Universal Church, not in human speculations of Synodal period. Moreover, I subscribe to an opinion of those Russian saints (from St. Ignatij Bryanchaninov to Mark Novoselov) who thought that failure of Russian Church is the only one way for reforming it and the only one punishment for the trespasses of Synodal period. So I think the question concerning acceptance of the Synodal period laws is a turning point which determines all our future.

If we stick to the norms of Synodal epoch, we’ll lose forever the sure ground of our independent existence, the ground of pure Orthodox with its dogmas and canons, and not of the trespasses and compromises of Synodal period.

Anastasia Georgievna Schatiloff, Daughter of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) and Noted Russian Diaspora Church Writer, Reposes in the Lord

2005-11-11T23:11:00.001-08:00

(Portal-Credo.Ru, Vertograd, New York)

In the eighty-first year of her life, Anastasia Georgievna Schatiloff, née Countess Grabbe, daughter of Bishop Gregory Grabbe, one of the main ideologues of the ROCOR, reposed in New York. She passed away at about 9:00 PM local time on November 1st in one of the hospitals of the New York area, to which she had been hurriedly transferred from a nursing home. A.G. Schatiloff had been at the nursing home undergoing rehabilitation therapy, after a serious accident she sustained towards the end of August on the staircase of the Synodal headquarters building of the ROAC in Suzdal, during which several of the vertebrae in her neck were broken.

A.G. Schatiloff was born on April 27, 1925, in Yugoslavia (then a kingdom comprised of Serbs, Croatians and Slovenians). She was the great-great-granddaughter of the Russian philosopher A.S. Khomiakov, and the granddaughter of P.S. Grabbe, a notable participant in the 1917-1918 Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. Since the 1950’s, A.G. Schatiloff had been assisting her father, Protopresbyter George Grabbe (later Bishop Gregory), Secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR.

During the last years of her life, Anastasia Georgievna published the bulletin Church News, an Independent Publication Dedicated to Russian Church Thought, in which special attention was paid to the process of "capitulation" by the ROCOR in connection with its upcoming unification with the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, and to the rebirth and growth of Orthodox parishes independent from the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia.

Metropolitan Valentine was not able to attend her funeral. On October 31 he was admitted to the hospital in Switzerland to treat the gangrene that had developed on his foot in September. Metropolitan Valentine will stay in Swiss hospital within next month.

Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church Meets

2005-11-11T23:11:00.000-08:00

(SEV–Vertograd, Suzdal)

On October 1/14, in the Synodal headquarters building in Suzdal, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church held a meeting with the blessing of the First Hierarch, Vladyka Valentine. Present at the meeting were: Archbishop Theodore of Borisovsk and Otradnaya, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk, and Bishop Ambrose.

Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, President of the Synod of Bishops was absent from the meeting by reason of illness.

Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumi and Abkhazia, being in Suzdal, could not participate the meeting either, because he had had a stroke several days before. Both Metropolitan Valentine and Archbishop Seraphim signed the minutes later.

The Synod of Bishops discussed the events of October 13th concerning the violent act done to Metropolitan Valentine, and considered the possible reasons for its cause and its consequences.

The Synod heard Archbishop Theodore, who described the beating of the Metropolitan in the Synodal building and the police response. Police officers at the scene immediately put forth their version of the event as a robbery attempt. But this version cannot be true since not all items of value were taken. "Would someone coming to rob the place bring tape along? Why would thieves need to tear the bandages off of the Metropolitan’s sore feet and beat on them after rolling him up in a rug? All of these things point to another reason for the break-in, other than robbery. It would be more logical for simple thieves to quickly grab whatever valuables they could, and run. If this were the case, they could have just grabbed the antique icons from the church and quietly leave," said Archbishop Theodore.

In the Archbishop’s opinion, this incident should be viewed, not as a burglary, but as a malicious act to instill fear in, ruin the health of, and possibly end the life of the First Hierarch of the ROAC. "This was not a simple case of robbery," remarked Archbishop Theodore, "but a logical progression, a malicious step in the ongoing and never-ending persecution of the ROAC and its First Hierarch.

Bishop Irinarch, remarked that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate in Suzdal and in other places, there is a systematic propaganda campaign directed against Vladyka Metropolitan and against the whole Church. "People tell us," said Vladyka, "that when they go to the Kazan Church or the Protection Monastery, the priests, lay people, and nuns there unleash an entire barrage of insults directed at the Metropolitan upon them, although they personally know him and have never otherwise heard anything bad about him. One can be sure that anyone who goes into any church belonging to the MP, especially people coming for the first time, will be subject to the same treatment with the intent of fostering hatred towards Vladyka Valentine."

Archbishop Theodore went down the list of the many instances of where local officials in Russia had violated the constitutional rights of the faithful of the ROAC: refusing the incorporation of communities and dioceses, harassment of priests and lay people, and refusing to issue deeds for newly constructed churches. Behind these unfair and discriminatory actions on the part of local officials, as a rule, stands the Moscow Patriarchate, certain powerful leaders of which have assigned themselves the task of destroying the ROAC, and in connection with this are using every chance they have to influence secular authorities.

The Synod of Bishops resolved to appeal to various international and Russia-wide human rights organizations with the request to look into the continuing repression against the faithful of the ROAC and its First Hierarch, Metropolitan Valentine.

Protopriest Michael Ardov. Words on the passing of Anastasia Georgievna Schatiloff (Grabbe). She was consumed with zeal for the Church, for the Tr

2005-11-11T23:10:00.000-08:00

I am thinking back to the distant 1970’s, to those stagnant years during the time of Brezhnev. I was a lay person in the Moscow Patriarchate then. Some absolutely amazing documents started to make their way to us. They were called "Notes from the Department of External Church Relations of the ROCOR," and they were sent by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. They consisted of little commentaries on the life of Orthodoxy and of the Christian world in general. In the utter isolation in which we lived at the time, these served as a big helping of very important information. I remember how we used to copy them and send them around. Of course, this was done with great caution because, as I imagine, the KGB would have been very interested not only in these materials, but also in how they came to be in our possession.

Later on, I was able to find out that the person who put these "Notes" together was none other than Anastasia Georgievna Schatiloff, née Countess Grabbe, daughter of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). Years passed by, and then, in 1994, I landed in America for the first time. It was in the home of Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff, where Bishop Gregory was living, inasmuch as Fr. Vladimir was married to Maria, the other daughter of Bishop Gregory, that I finally got to meet Anastasia Georgievna in person.

For forty years, this woman served as secretary for her father. Vladyka Gregory himself, over the span of fifty-five years, occupied the position of Secretary of the Synod Abroad. In 1994, when I first got to meet them, although Vladyka Gregory was already "out of work," he still had a large correspondence, and he continued to exert his influence on unfolding Church events. And all of this, because he himself was old and infirm, was carried out with the help of his elder daughter, Anastasia Georgievna.

Then, we learned that these "Notes" themselves stopped being published, as the result of an internal revolution inside the ROCOR, when, after the death of Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Vitaly was chosen as First hierarch of the ROCOR, and Bishop Gregory was scandalously and crudely kicked out of the Synod of the ROCOR. But a little bit later, another publication began appearing, "Church News," which for dozens of years would be put together and published by Anastasia Georgievna. Literally up until last summer, "Church News" came out regularly, and became an even more serious publication than I remember the earlier "Notes" to have been.

I became friends with Anastasia Georgievna. I was enchanted by the fact that, other than Church interests, she had, in fact, no other interests at all. Although she did have children, and grandchildren, and she was on good terms with everyone, nevertheless, all of her energy, and her entire identity, were always concentrated on Church questions.

I am very sorry that I won’t be able to speak with her, sit down at table with her (she loved that), drink a shot of vodka with her, and hear her tell her stories anymore. And her stories were amazing. For example, she was closely acquainted with Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), and with the other First Hierarchs of the Church Abroad, and she remembered many remarkable figures of the emigrant community, as well as war-time and post-war Yugoslavia and Germany. Many of her memoirs were recorded on tape by my assistant, Sergei Alexandrovich Suvorov. With God’s help, we hope to digitalize them and make them available to posterity.

For now, I would simply like to say that we are praying for the repose of the soul of Anastasia Georgievna. She was a remarkable person, an impartial witness, and a person obsessed by one idea. It could be said that the main living force, which helped her to survive, which made up the fundamental content of her life, was simply what is called "the zeal for Thy house," zeal for the Church, zeal for the Truth.

Appeal of the Synod of Bishops, clergy and laity of the persecuted Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)

2005-10-29T00:50:00.000-07:00

The Synod of Bishops, clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church respectfully turn to you, as the head of a major human rights organization, with a matter of utmost importance. We request that you take note of certain violations against the Constitution of the Russian Federation, against the Freedom of Conscience Law, and against the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and to take the appropriate measures to see that these violations are not repeated.

This matter concerns the October 13th beating that was sustained by the First Hierarch of our Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, while he was inside his home in Suzdal. The elderly and ailing Metropolitan, who is affected with an acute case of diabetes, among other things, who has had more than one heart bypass surgery, and who suffers from deep foot ulcers, was accosted by unknown criminals, who tied him up hands and feet, taped his mouth shut, and then wrapped him up in a rug and repeatedly kicked him. In order to increase the pain, they ﬁrst tore off the dressings that had been covering the sores on his feet.

These atrocities, perpetrated on a defenseless old man, can be compared only with the tortures and atrocities that the Bolsheviks perpetrated on various members of the episcopacy, clergy and laity, ﬁrst, because they dared to believe in God, and secondly, because they refused to join the "Renovationist Church" that had been set up by the commisars, and later, because they refused to submit to the NKVD and its special department, the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate (ROC MP), founded by Stalin and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Across the USSR, from Kolyma to Alma Ata, the blood of those martyrs was poured out in torrents, and the murderers of those new martyrs have yet to be tried till this day. Now, blood is again ﬂowing from the persecuted successors of the Church of the New Martyrs of Russia, in Suzdal, the spiritual center of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.

Without any doubt, this sad fact is connected with the discrimination on the part of local government officials against the rights of the faithful of the ROAC, which has been taking place for a long time already. From the very ﬁrst moments of our separation from the ROC MP in 1989, we became the object of persecution by local authorities, and started to have problems with transferring ownership of churches and other church properties. At the present time, it has become practically impossible to incorporate any new parishes or dioceses.

The community of St. Xenia in Novaya Kupavna, Moscow region, after the three long years of hard work required to incorporate, cannot get the permission needed to ﬁnish building a church on its own land. In Vologda, while reincorporating its religious center under the Suzdal diocese, the community was told by local authorities that there would be no problems transferring the church as long as it had incorporation papers issued by the government. However, the community’s request was denied nevertheless, on the basis that all of the churches had already been transferred to the Vologda diocese of the ROC MP. The community then asked for any building or parcel of land so that it could erect a church, but this request was also denied. The reasoning went something like this: "There are already enough churches in the area. Go and pray in one of them. You all have the same God anyway."

In the Bryansk region, our priests have been threatened not only by the representatives of the Bryansk diocese of the ROC MP, but also by regional officials who have made statements to the effect that, notwithstanding the legally incorporated status of the ROAC, it is only a quasi-legal organization, which is in a special category, and under scrutiny, and they advised its priests that they had better be concerned about the future of their children.

In the Vladimir region, according to an unspoken order of Gov. Vinogradov to his officials, the deed to the church of St. John the Forerunner in the town of Pavlovskoye, Suzdal region, which has been restored from its ruins by active members of the ROAC, has yet to be transferred to the faithful, in spite of all of the court decisions awarding it to them.

Parishes of the ROAC in the Khabarovsk area are not permitted to incorporate, as well as in the regions of Chelyabinsk, Orenburg, Perm, et al. Instead of processing their applications to incorporate, officials there try to talk the priests into returning to the Moscow Patriarchate, tell them what their opinion is about Metropolitan Valentine, inform the local dioceses of the MP about every attempt of ROAC communities to incorporate, and fulﬁll their every directive.

In this way, government workers end up acting as agents of organizations, which by virtue of their legal standing, are separated from the government. A complicated situation has developed in the city of Suzdal itself, center of the Suzdal diocese. Two newly built churches, built by request of city officials themselves, (the Holy New Martyrs of Russia Church in the new microregion, and the cemetery church of St. Vladimir), have not been given legal status for ﬁve years now, as a result of the express spoken instructions of the governor of the Vladimir region, Mr. Vinogradov, together with the collusion of the former mayor of Suzdal, a Mr. Ryzhov, himself one-time chief of the Suzdal department of the FSB. These churches, with the permission of the authorities, have more than once been the targets of blasphemous desecrationby people belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate, who have organized the "Committee to Fight the ROAC on Suzdal Territory."

Two years ago in Suzdal, from 2001-2003, hoodlums from the "Chechen Veterans Union" and from "Nashe Delo" (Cosa Nostra) repeatedly beat up several of our clergymen and lay people, and set ﬁre to their homes and to our monastery. The local authorities (the mayor of Suzdal, A.Y. Ryzhov, the chief of GROVD, S.V. Belousov, the district attorney of Suzdal, A.A. Smirnov, the regional district attorney, A.V. Shaykov, and the governor of the Vladimir region, N. Vinogradov), did absolutely NOTHING to protect the faithful. All of these criminal cases were closed. All written appeals, whether they were addressed to the city or to the regional DA’s, ended up with the standard ambiguous phrase, "no sign of criminal activity found." The horrendous campaign of character assassination against Metropolitan Valentine on the pages of the newspapers also continues to go unpunished (Russky Vestnik, Sovershenno Secretno, Prizyv), with their calls to "physically destroy," "cut off Metropolitan Valentine’s ears and threaten him that his head will be next," "squish" Metropolitan Valentine (Vladimir regional newspaper Prizyv, June 14, 2001), "to twist the little pig’s head off" (Russky Vestnik, #17-18, 2002), "to follow through to the end with this matter and cleanse the land of Suzdal" (Russky Vestnik, 29-30, 2002). On July 5, 2001, the newspaper Prizyv openly stated that, "Father Valentine should be shot. For his sake we should temporarily forget about the ban on capital punishment, put a bullet in the back of his head, and put the whole thing on TV." The made-to-order court case and improper conviction, which followed thereupon, have also gone unpunished, and there is no justice to be found anywhere. It seems like we’re living back in the days of 1937 all over again.

We are convinced, that the above-mentioned facts will leave no doubt that the ROC MP, in concert with local authorities, have assigned themselves the task of destroying the ROAC and its First Hierarch. This idea is supported by the above-cited publications, in which it is openly stated that if Metropolitan Valentine is removed from the scene, "his autonomous church will be swallowed up by the MP, since the ROAC has no other leader of his caliber" (Prizyv, #146, August 15, 2001). And now, we see a violent act perpetrated on the head of the ROAC, Metropolitan Valentine.

Again and again, we implore you to do everything possible to bring the discrimination and violations of the rights of the ROAC faithful to an end, to stop the unbridledness, and to express your protest against the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church and its First Hierarch, Metropolitan Valentine.

(75 signatures follow)

Metropolitan Valentine Beaten, Robbed, By Unknown Assailants In Suzdal

2005-10-15T00:48:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Herald – Vertograd, Suzdal)

On Thursday, October 13th, eve of the feast of the Protection of the Mother of God, unknown criminals burglarized the Synodal headquarters and residence of Metropolitan Valentine, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church.

Between the hours of 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM, the Metropolitan was home alone, recuperating from an illness. At around 7:00 PM, Archbishop Theodore, returning from services, was unable to enter the Synodal headquarters due to a malfunctioning lock on the front door. However, Vladyka quickly figured out how to get the door open and discovered Metropolitan Valentine rolled up inside a carpet on the floor. All of the closets had been opened, and their contents were strewn around the room.

The criminals, probably two or three of them, used axes, sledgehammers, and breaker bars to get into the house through the garage after breaking through four metal doors, which lead from the attached garage to the altar of the Synodal house chapel dedicated to the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God.

According to Metropolitan Valentine, he was standing with his back to the entrance of his living quarters when he heard a noise from behind him just before receiving a hard blow to the head, which knocked him down. He fell and lost consciousness. Then, the criminals repeatedly beat him about the stomach and liver, tore the bandages from his ulcerated foot, then they dragged him to a large room where they bound his hands and feet with lamp cord and a towel, taped over his mouth, and rolled him up inside the carpet, which was covering a couch.

Police at the scene also constituted the facts of the robbery. The thieves grabbed two silver chalices, three valuable panaghias, which had formerly belonged to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), and Metropolitan Anthony (Romanovsky), and several very old icons, from cabinets in the living room. The criminals also tried to break into the office safe, which contained important documents. A very old icon of St. Dimitry of Rostov was stolen from the Synodal chapel. In their hurry to escape,the thieves abandoned several very old and heavy icons at the doors of the garage.

Doctors arrived by ambulance and administered first aid to Vladyka Metropolitan. Vladyka quickly regained consciousness. A quick examination revealed signs of concussion, as well as trauma to the face, entire body, and Vladyka’s ulcerated feet.

In all probability, the main goal of these criminals was not robbery, but to cause physical harm to the aged and ailing Metropolitan. In Suzdal, in anticipation of mayoral elections being held on October 16th, several members of the extremist organization "Chechen Veterans Union", also known as "Nashe Delo" (Cosa Nostra), were seen around town again. These people engage in negative PR for hire, and everyone in Suzdal remembers their activity during the last mayoral elections in February/March, 2002, which were marked by a long drawn out campaign of harassment against the First Hierarch of the ROAC and the Russian Church, including beatings of several of the clergy and active lay members of the ROAC in Suzdal. The press played a particularly active role in persecuting the Metropolitan. The Vladimir regional newspaper "Prizyv" and the newspaper "Russian Vestnik" called for direct physical reprisals against Metropolitan Valentine. This time, Metropolitan Valentine arrived in Suzdal from Zheleznovodsk, and on the eve of the elections, was preparing to publish a statement addressed to the authorities and citizens of the city.

All of this is going on against the background of general persecution against the ROAC carried out by the local authorities, who, as a rule, are guided by directives from the Moscow Patriarchate. In December of 2002, Archbishop Evlogy of Vladimir (MP) gave the church award called the Order of Daniel of Moscow 3rd class to the head of the bureau for state security for the Russian Federation (FSB RF) in the Vladimir region, a Mr. P.V. Sivanov, in advance, for his "help in returning property belonging to the ROC, which was in the hands of schismatic religious factions". To this day, the Suzdal diocese has not been able to get the deeds to its church properties belonging to the ROAC in Suzdal (Church of the Holy New Martyrs of Russia), and in the town of Pavlovsk, Suzdal region, (Nativity of the Forerunner Church). In Zheleznovodsk, the MP is trying to seize control of the Church of St. Olga by hook or by crook. Everywhere, ROAC communities are being denied the right to incorporate. Churches belonging to the ROAC in and around Suzdal have been repeatedly robbed. The smear campaign in the press continues non-stop, especially by "Orthodox" journalists. And now, it has come to physical violence. The facts of these events have caused the City of Suzdal’s investigative authorities to open a case.

Passing of Archbishop Andreas, the former First–Hieratch of the Matthewite Synod of the TOC of Greece

2005-10-08T02:11:00.000-07:00

(Paradosis–Vertograd:Athens)

Archbishop Andreas, the retired Archbishop of Athens and the former First–Hieratch of the Matthewite Synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, reposed in the Lord on October 4. He was the oldest by his ordination Hierarch of the True Orthodoxy. He was ordained to the bishop of Patras on September 13, 1948, by Bishop Matthew himself together with Bishop Spyridon. Before the ordination he was the monk on the Holy Mount of Athos.

Archbishop Andreas was the head of the Matthewite Synod from 1972 till his retirement in February 2003. Archbishop Nicholas (former Metropolitan of Pireus) headed the Synod after him.

The Funeral of Archbishop Andreas will be held on October 6 in the Chapel of St. Modestos at his residence.
MEMORY ETERNAL!

Nun Martha (Senina). Review of Protopriest George Edelstein, Notes of a Village Priest

2005-10-08T02:10:00.000-07:00

The book of Fr. George Edelstein, the rector of the Resurrection church in the village of Karabanovo, Kostroma diocese in the ROC MP, is a collection of articles from 1988 to 2000 devoted to the inner life and problems of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the foreword the author recounts how in 1979 the then still Archbishop of Kursk and Belgorod Chrysostom, having ordained him to the priesthood, sent him to a parish, saying in his parting words that a priest must not simply be able "to wave a censer", but "today he must be everything that the Church requires of him". "But is it possible to lie for the benefit of the Church?" asked the newly-ordained [priest], and heard in reply: "It is both possible and necessary." "For twenty-five years," writes the author of the collection, "I have been thinking about these words. Everything that is written in this book is the result of these thoughts."

In the book there are three sections: "In the parish", "Turning to rejected ordinances" and "Through humble prayer, repentance and love..." The author without fear or favour describes the inner life of the ROC MP in the Soviet period - a system of total State control over the Church, universal fear of the authorities, the arbitrariness of officials, obstacles on the path of the organisation of normal Church life in the parish, the lack of desire on the part of the hierarchs to defend the rights of the Church before the powers that be. The author also criticises the membership of the MP in "the conglomerate of Christian tendencies, opinions and sects which is called a 'World Council of Churches': "The Church is the Body of Christ. But how many Churches and Christs do we have now? Why does the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate" never use the word "heretic"?" (p. 52). Fr. George also criticises the pusillanimity of contemporary hierarchs of the MP, their inability to be at the head of [a movement of] spiritual regeneration, their isolation not only from the simple people, but also from the rank-and-file clergy. "Even today," he writes, "the Church is in voluntary sweet captivity. It is as much deprived of spiritual freedom today as in any of the past sixty years. Our hierarchs even today are in the position of court flatterers and panegyrists..." (p. 71). Fr. George also criticises the conversion of the church into "a house of trade": "The most terrible thing that we have done in the Orthodox Church is that we have converted every sacrament into a commodity, everything is sold according to a strict price-list" (p. 63). Touching on the opinion that is current in the MP that "preachers from abroad" lure the potential flock of the MP through "hand-outs", Fr. George writes: "The main poverty of the Moscow Patriarchate is not material but spiritual, we have exchanged fraternal kisses with lieutenant-generals of the MB-KGB for too long and too sincerely. Because of this we rely today not on the rock of faith, but on "bird cherry", on the batons of OMON, and on all the new prohibitory articles of the Law on freedom of conscience" (p. 83).

From page to page, from article to article, the power of the critique grows. "The root vice of the Moscow Patriarchate," writes the author, "lies in the fact that we, having assimilated the sergianist doctrine, have inevitably been turned into an integral part of the statehood of the USSR, we have become a little cog and wheel in the diabolic machine... And naturally, having become servers of the Soviets, the functionaries have lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil, truth and falsehood. Hence the salvation of the Church through shameless lies, hence the false witnesses about the New Martyrs..." (p. 125).

Speaking about ways of overcoming the division between the ROC MP and the ROCOR, he writes: "Ordinary believers suggest the beginning of the overcoming of the schism where the hierarchs see its conclusion - in the restoration of eucharistic unity. Without brotherly love, without prayer and without repentance. Something that is unknown and unthinkable in Orthodoxy: unity not simply without unanimity, but with openly expressed disagreement" (p. 241). Fr. George speaks about the complete absence in the hierarchy of the ROC MP of repentance for earlier evil deeds and lies committed in the Soviet times. Moreover, relying on his own considerable experience of communion with bishops of the MP, he says that these people are in principle incapable of such repentance. And so, summing up his observations of the life of the ROC MP:

"No acts of public repentance have taken place, are taking place or will take place... No purges (he means in the form of cleansing the ROC from unworthy clergy - N.M.) have taken place, are taking place or will take place. Incidentally, there are also no 'real church courts'. Simply because the purge would have to begin from the most highly placed people, with the Holy Synod. It there that the people "who have most defiled themselves morally, politically and spiritually" are sitting.

True sobornost has not been restored, is not being restored, and will not be restored. Sobornost is a sharp knife for our present hierarchs... The role of the rank-and-file clergy and laity in the Moscow Patriarchate has been reduced to nothing. "True Councils, without pomp or deadlines"

have not taken place, are not taking place and will not take place... "True Councils" are needed by nobody" (p. 258).
Of course, we have to give the author his due for his boldness and refusal to flatter. However, on reading his book perplexity gradually increases: why does Fr. George consider this organisation to be a Church? An organisation which, according to his own words, is rotten through and through (especially at the top), in which there is no true repentance, not even a hint of sobornost, nor sign of true spiritual regeneration, and the most important thing - "is not and will not be". After all, he not only considers the ROC MP to be the true Church of Christ, but is even offended by Bishop Agathangel of Simferopol and the Crimea (RTOC), who does not recognise the MP to be such. What logic is the author following when he continues to remain in the ROC MP and considers it to be a Church?

Fr. George notes that we must not be "too strict" toward the MP, insofar as not everything is in order in the other "branches of the Russian Church" - the ROCOR and the catacombniks. "Who is repenting, who is convening genuine Councils, who is listening to the opinion of the laity, where does the principle of sobornost triumph?" (p. 258). He says approximately the same in reply to the reproaches of Bishop Agathangelus: "Every branch of the Russian Orthodox Church has its own sins, its own illnesses, which can be healed in only one way - by repentance and conciliar reasoning. But not one branch wants to repent, not one is striving to resolve the problems of the Church in an All-Russian Local Council... It is difficult to repent, one has to humble oneself, show spiritual strength and fortitude, one has to stand before God. While it is very easy and simple to abuse others. There no humility is needed, but pride. There it is not obligatory at all to be a Christian." (p. 328). The author of the book speaks with approval of those bishops of the ROCOR who are striving for negotiations with the ROC MP and a joint resolution of the problems of the Church.

On the other hand, Fr. George does not at all approve of those who consider that the MP is "graceless" - in particular, the third First Hierarch of the ROCOR, the holy Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky): these people, in the opinion of the author, "have for many years been trying to obtain a declaration that the Moscow Patriarchate is "graceless"... As a proof of such theologoumena, the "theory" of the "gracelessness" of the Catholics is dragged out of naphthalene. The Catholics are "heretics in the same way as the Mohammedans are" (I'm not joking, this is a quotation, the author is a hierarch). Apostolic succession, they say, is just a form, a shell, a pod, while "a true Orthodox hierarch" (for example, a Greek Old Calendarist) must unfailingly fill this shell with content"; this teaching Fr. George calls "sectarianism".

Alas, we have to recognise that in spite of all his criticism of the existing order of things in the ROC MP, in spite of his understanding of why genuine spiritual regeneration has not taken place in Russia under the leadership of the MP, the author of the book remains one flesh with the very system he so ardently criticises. He uses non-ecclesiastical concepts, and understands even repentance, which he speaks so much about, in a quite different way from the Orthodox Church. After all, if, for example, a person is in communion with heresy, his repentance must consist not simply in personal recognition of the fact that "heresy is bad", but in breaking ecclesiastical communion with the heretics. But in the eyes of Fr. George there is no difference between canonical sins or sins on the "ascetic" plane and transgressions in the sphere of dogmatics. It is for that reason that he cannot understand why the True Orthodox consider heretics such as the Catholics and ecumenists to be completely outside the Church, and why they do not wish to sit with them "at the table of negotiations". Fr. George's conceptions of the Church are taken, not from Orthodoxy, but from those same Catholics - this is quite clear from his reasoning with regard to "apostolic succession", which, it turns out, is not lost even with the acceptance of heresy - a teaching completely unknown to the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

What did Fr. George hope to achieve with his book? Evidently, to force his ecclesiastical brothers to think, to call them to repentance. But the reader can with reason ask: why all these calls to repent when the ROC MP is still a Church? Why all these exposes of hierarchs and the "KGB" patriarch, if the exposers themselves continue to commemorate these hierarchs and consider them to be grace-bearing pastors of "the flock of Christ"? Why all these complaints about the "spiritual infirmity" of the ROC MP, since sacraments, in the opinion of the complainers, are still performed in it? Fr. George bitterly writes that "as time passes, even the call to repentance sounds more and more absurd. From all sides I hear: "We have nothing to repent of" (p. 6). But his own position leads, in essence, to a still more radical conclusion: it is not that the hierarchy and rank-and-file members of the ROC MP "have nothing" to repent of: it is that there is no reason to repent. After all, the Church still remains the Church. What else is needed?.. It is for that reason that books like Fr. George's collection of articles have factual interest as a collection of documents of the epoch, as an illustration of the psychology and faith of the clergy of the contemporary ROC MP - but, unfortunately, have no spiritual value, and can hardly elicit those serious changes in hearts and minds that Fr. George is hoping for.

(Published at Portal-Credo.ru, translation by Vladimir Moss published at Paradosis)

Ninth clergy-laity conference of the Russian Orthodox autonomous church held in Suzdal

2005-09-07T09:40:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Herald – Vertograd, Suzdal)

On September 3-4, the ninth clergy-laity conference of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church was held in Suzdal. The previous clergy-laity conference, number 8, of the ROAC took place almost five years ago, in November of 2000, in Suzdal, at which it was decided to canonize the Synaxis of the Venerable Women of Diveevo. After that, a period of persecution began, brought about by the actions of A. Osetrov and encouraged by the Moscow Patriarchate.

The conference opened on the morning of September 3rd, with a special moleben to the Savior, the Mother of God, and the New Martyrs of Russia, which was celebrated in the Tsar Constantine Cathedral by His Grace Bishop Ambrose together with all of the clergy. In all, the conference was attended by 26 clergymen and about 20 lay persons from the various dioceses of the Russian Autonomous Church, representing the Russian Federation and neighboring countries, as well as by seven bishops of the Russian Autonomous Church.

At 10:00 a.m., in the conference hall of the Suzdal Diocesan Administration building, after the invocation, the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, His Eminence Valentine, Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir, opened the clergy-laity conference with an introductory address, in which he pointed out that the purpose for having a conference is, first and foremost, to give the participants an opportunity to pray together liturgically, to have eucharistic communion as children of the Russian Autonomous Church from one holy chalice, as well as to collectively discuss vital issues facing the dioceses and parishes, and resolving various questions and problems that the clergy meet up with in parish life. Vladyka underlined, that the conference is not the place for examining questions of a canonical or dogmatic nature, nor is it appropriate to discuss the recent decisions made by the Synod of Bishops and the diocesan authority.

In his official capacity, Vladyka Metropolitan read a lecture concerning the life of the Suzdal diocese of the ROAC over the course of the last five years. He pointed out that in the well known legal persecution of the First Hierarch of the ROAC and the smear campaign directed against the Church, the devil was endeavoring to destroy the Russian Autonomous Church and its First Hierarch completely. The past persecution demonstrates that all of the Church’s children, especially Her pastors, must not be lulled into complacency, but must be ever ready to maintain the purity of their faith and their consciences in order to escape the various traps set for them by the enemy of our salvation. At the present time, "he is trying embroil our Church in a morass of slander, disorder, and heresy." In the words of our First Hierarch, this serves as proof positive that we are on the right path; the path of truth.

"True Orthodoxy presupposes the keeping of the canons of the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers, and the Councils. This is the foundation of our Church." The First Hierarch emphasized that "all are required to keep the holy canons. For example, if someone refuses to commemorate the Metropolitan, or gives a blessing to others to do so, he is to be deposed, according to the canons. And if our Synod fails to depose such clergymen, then the grace of the Holy Spirit will abandon it."

"From the history of the Church, we know that through various arguments, intrigues, and temptations, the Saints were purified and strengthened, and those traitors who besmirched themselves through pride fell away from the Church. It is difficult to keep oneself inside the saving ship of Christ’s Church, but through repentance, it is possible for any sin to be healed," Vladyka Metropolitan concluded.

In the course of his comments, Vladyka Metropolitan made several comments of a disciplinary nature; in particular, he mentioned that without a letter of release or permission from his ruling bishop, no clergyman has the right to permit any other clergyman or bishop to serve in his parish.

Vladyka Metropolitan also spoke about the necessity of the rectors to pay their diocesan dues, to pay the proscribed tithe, remarking that many of the clergy fail to fulfill this requirement of the Russian Autonomous Church.

To the question about what relations are permissible with clergy of the True Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Valentine responded by saying that since the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church has established no official relationship with this Church, the only kind of relationship that our members may have with it is one of an everyday nature. Speaking in general about our relationship with the other groups that have appeared as a result of the break-up of the ROCOR, namely the True Russian Orthodox Church and the ROCOR(V), Vladyka said that as of today, no sharply defined position has been taken by the Synod of Bishops of the ROAC concerning these jurisdictions. The reasons for the divisions between the ROAC and these other Churches result not so much from a difference in confession of Faith, as from differences arising from the personal ambitions of the different bishops involved. "I am against the idea of personal ambition," noted the Metropolitan. His Grace Bishop Ambrose commented that the new head of the True Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia, made extremely negative comments about the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, calling it an "outgrowth of the MP" in his encyclical letter. Archbishop Theodore, in turn, emphasized that the positions of the Synods of Metropolitan Vitaly and of Archbishop Tikhon are contradictory. "These people strive first for one unification, and then for another. Metropolitan Vitaly extended his sympathies upon the death of Archbishop Lazar, but then Bishop Victor (Pivovarov) branded the True Russian Orthodox Church a ‘schism’." "The main thing for us," concluded Vladyka Metropolitan, "is to keep the commandments of Christ, and to stay on the path of Christ’s truth. Then, those who are seeking the truth will come to us, and then we will be able to choose whether or not to have anything to do with them. There is no need to rush."

Upon the recommendation of the dean of the churches of the Suzdal circuit, Archpriest Arkady Makovetsky, and with the blessing of Metropolitan Valentine, the conference elected a new father confessor for the Suzdal diocese. Igumen Simon (Koretsky), a resident of the New Martyrs of Russia Monastery in Suzdal was chosen as such. Previously, the father confessor was Archbishop Anthony of Yaransk and Vyatka, who is no longer able to fulfill this obedience owing to the difficulties connected with his advanced age.

In conclusion, His Grace Bishop Ambrose read a lecture "On Several Widely Accepted Errors in the Celebration of the Divine Services," which then became the subject for comments and discussion.

In the evening of the same day, the participants of the conference prayed together at Divine Services in the Tsar Constantine Cathedral. The next morning, September 4th, there was a concelebration of the Divine Liturgy, which was headed by His Eminence Valentine, Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir, Their Eminences Archbishop Theodore of Borisovsk and Otradna, Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumsk and Abkhazia, Archbishop Anthony of Yaransk and Vyatka, Their Graces Bishop Timothy of Orenburg and Kurgansk, Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk, Bishop Ambrose, and a multitude of clergy (twenty-four priests and two deacons). The responses were made by two choirs, singing antiphonally. After the reading of the Gospel, His Grace Bishop Ambrose gave a sermon, in which he emphasized the importance of the sufferings of the New Martyrs for the Russian Autonomous Church, who saved the Church during the years of militant atheism by their blood. "Wherever there is God’s truth, there is suffering, there is prison and exile, there is torture and death, but there is also the grace of God. Not with the Sergianists, who betrayed the New Martyrs and handed them over to their deaths, not with the heresiarchs, the "saviors" of the Moscow Patriarchate, but in the catacombs of the persecuted Church--there was the grace of God," His Grace Bishop Ambrose stressed. "We must remember this always."

After trapeza, the second session of the conference was held. Metropolitan Valentine reminded the participants of the conference that on the 8th of October is the tenth anniversary of the repose of the Ever-memorable Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). "Vladyka Gregory," continued the Metropolitan, "it may be said, was the only bishop who held a consistent position vis-a-vis the Moscow Patriarchate, without any compromise, to the end, and he exerted every effort to maintain the ROCOR’s confession of true Orthodoxy. Only after the death of St. Metropolitan Philaret, once Vladyka Gregory understood that his struggle was doomed to failure, he said, ‘All hope has vanished here in the diaspora; nothing is working out. Let us go to work in Russia. You must continue the line of confessing the Faith begun by the First Hierarchs of the ROCOR, Anthony, Anastasy, and Philaret. The Church Abroad is finished.’"

Then, Archbishop Theodore read a lecture which had been prepared by the daughter of the Ever-memorable Bishop Gregory, A.G Schatiloff, on the life and accomplishments of her father. Following this, the participants of the conference continued their discussion on several questions: publishing a general church calendar, the correct way to receive people from the different communities of "world Orthodoxy," the fine points of celebrating different services, publishing, etc. At this, the conference finished its work.

On the whole, despite the fact that the conference was attended by a relatively small number of clergy from the Russian Autonomous Church, the friendly atmosphere amongst themselves and with the bishops,, as well as the opportunity that all had to serve together, left everyone with a very pleasant impression.

MIT: Konstantine Preobrazhensky. Laurus & the KGB

2005-09-07T09:35:00.000-07:00

1. The Obscure Metoche (Podvoriye)

What money went into building the Jordanville Monastery’s Metoche in Moscow suburbs? Whenever you address this question to the Russian йmigrй in America, they show you all their white teeth in wonderment: they never even heard of a metoche or anything… Some did eventually hear a rumor or two about either an office or Laurus’ exquisite dacha near Moscow.

Anyway, the Podvoriye has a precise address - settlement Veliaminovo, Istra District, some 20 miles from Moscow’s center along the Novorizhskoye Highway. It is a very prestigious recreational retreat where no aliens are admitted. The place is inhabited by high-rank embezzlers of public funds and rich "New Russians", many having close ties with the Mafia. Neighboring on the Jordanville Metoche is a grand mansion of a vodka baron.

The Metoche is a vast three-level mansion plus a spacious attic and includes an inner church splendidly decorated by archbishop Alipy (see photos). Experts estimate its cost at around a million dollars, especially if we throw in the sums in bribes that are known to be part and parcel of everyday life in Russia.

There is a telephone in Podvoriye bur very few know its number. Hence Nikolay Savinov, a ROCOR priest who picked up the phone, was all courtesy at first. He explained that the Podvoriye was built in the year 2000 but so far has been operating as a private house, illegally. He also readdressed me to vladyka Laurus for a blessing for a comprehensive interview.

A nice private home that was, whence you are relayed to America which is here viewed with a more and more hostile attitude as days go on. Besides, Laurus is not listed among the owners of this building, the formal owners being a group of four other clerics of the Church Abroad.

The accrediting of a Podvoriye of a foreign-based Church presupposes full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. According to the rules of the Foreign Relations Department of the MP, only the Rector can be sent in to serve in the Metoche while the rest of the clergy must be local. It should be brought to mind that ROCOR does not as yet enjoy liturgical communion with MP, yet the Podvoriye had been completed more than 5 years ago. Has someone been so indiscriminate as to throw such a big sum of money to the winds?

With but little hope did I dial the number of the Jordanville Monastery to reach metropolitan Laurus and was put through immediately! On duty at the telephone that night was an US-born monk who did not speak a word of Russian and fortunately had never before read any of my articles on the KGB operations in ROCOR. Had there been some one of the Russian novices or monks openly working for Moscow, I would not have had one chance to get connected to Laurus I saw it as God’s provenance.

Initially Laurus was as hearty as ever.

- The Podvoriye is not open yet, he commented, when will it be? When we settle things.

- When did the Podvoriye appear in its present form? – I asked.

- A few years ago.

- Will it be opened officially after eucharistic communion has been established with MP, I asked.

- Perhaps a while later, -specified Laurus,-we need men. The problem will hopefully be discussed at one of the meetings of the Two-Sided Commission.

However, when I asked to explain to me if the presence of the Podvoriye was canonically tenable, Laurus showed signs of apprehension: "What do you need that for?". For an article, I answered frankly.

-This is not to be mentioned! – snapped back Laurus, and the interview was over.

Last time I got a similar response was at Russian Communists’ Headquarters.

The news of the Podvoriye must meanwhile have reached the Russian Authorities, especially the FSB whose business is to carry on a close watch on the US organizations operating in Russia. Why then hide it from the Church people? Can there be any secrets in Church?

Anyway, they would be facing a difficult task trying to explain to the ROCOR believers why should they have had to begin building a Representation already in the middle of the 90’s when no sign of a rapprochement with MP had yet been in sight! Most certainly the whole business had been negotiated back then secretly, without knowledge of the parishioners. Hence also the official discussions which started off in 2003 have not been anything but a fake, a deception of the working class, as they used to say during the Soviet era. This portends a scandal.

A Moscow archpriest Mikhail Ardov once told me that in the already distant 1994, he came to Jordanville and proposed they printed his book which exposed the sergianist nature of the MP. Laurus did not bless this publication. They are telling now that at those times they were cautious about publishing works by unknown writers from Russia lest they do them wrong. But Fr Mikhail was then a clergyman of ROCOR and was even receiving funds from her for his church. It is now clear that the reason for denial lay in something else.

Archpriest Sergiy Klestov, a New Yorker, narrated a story of how he rebuked Laurus for his participation in the Moleben in company with Alexis II in May of 2004 on the Butovo firing range premises near Moscow where thousands had been shot as part of Stalin’s reprisals in mid 30’s.

How dared you, Vladyka, - he said, - serve together with the Sergianists at the place of death of the New Martyrs, in which a share of guilt was on the Sergianists themselves? You mixed up them and the traitors of Christ!

-I did not put on my vestments, retorted Laurus rather naively.

-Do you think it does matter to the martyrs, whether you were in vestments or not?,- continued Fr Sergius, but received no answer from Laurus

Laurus had long thought of relocating to Russia and built this castle in Veliaminovo precisely for this purpose, - I was told by a prominent Moscow priest serving under the omophorion of Metropolitan Vitaly who knew and communicated with Laurus closely ever since his first visits to Russia in early 90’s. Laurus’ business has always been to stifle any initiative directed at the improvement of ROCOR position in Russia, - he went on, - at that time, many MP clergymen with a status came to see him in order to explore the possibility of their joining the ROCOR. He took every measure to discourage them from making this step. He received outsiders with all possible courtesy but as courtly did he see them off, normally with no result. With the insiders he would be impolite, often pretending he was weary or something, thus exhibiting a cute discrimination.Two words were lacking in his vocabulary, yes and no.During the first years after the collapse of the Soviet regime, there were many excellent church buildings everywhere that had no owners. Given a slight effort any of them could be appropriated at no charge. Laurus however sabotaged any such endeavor, and I could give examples. A jesuit smile usually overshadowed his face whenever the question was raised, a stain of double-dealing in life. The most striking example ever was his reluctance to ask for a superb, early 20th century church in the village of Byokhovo, near the world-famous Polenovo estate, which by the time had been standing unoccupied for at least 8 years. The church could have become a gem of the Russian Church Abroad in Russia. Supposing Laurus is an agent of Moscow, commissioned with unleashing subversive activities within the Church Abroad, his behavior finds adequate explanation, - my interlocutor concluded with a sad sigh.

He further told me, that several years ago, when the health of Alexis II deteriorated sharply, the "orthodox KGB-ist" and banker Pugachev and businessman Boris Jordan who had serious business going on through the mediation of the Patriarch, feared he would die before they could get their transactions cleared and decided they could persuade Putin to promote their friend Laurus to the position of the Patriarch of Moscow. They went on to do this via Putin’s political technologist Gleb Pavlovsky, and as a token of their good wishes and as consolation bought a villa in Switzerland for the ailing Alexis.

The wealthy Jordan family had always maintained close relations with Laurus. Boris’ father, the late Aleksey Borisovich, set up a foundation in 1999 for promoting cadet movement in Russia. Yet he did not do it under the auspices of ROCOR as would be logical, but under the MP, canonical intercommunion with which had yet been out of question at the time. The Movement does not propagate the spirit of the White Guard, its leaders being none other but the soviet communist-minded generals. Can it do any good for the Church Abroad? What does Laurus think about it all?

There are many strange features in the bios of many hierarchs of ROCOR which lead one to think of the KGB. For example, who can tell how archbp Mark, a native of German Democratic Republic (the Soviet-occupied part of the divided Germany) and its army officer, managed to defect to the West in the 60’s. He could not have done this legally. Why also the KGB let him go quietly out of jail in USSR where he had landed for smuggling in a load of anti-soviet literature in mid 70’s, when the law stipulatedsevere punishment for what was then considered as subversive activities against the regime. I have included my understanding of these strange episodes in my article "The Two Mysteries of Archbishop Mark".

Laurus too has had some strange episodes in his CV. I mean his regular visits to his relatives in the communist Czechoslovakia.

-Well, it was not the USSR he went to, - somewould try to acquit Laurus.

Alas, alas! Just the same thing! Simply because all the intelligence agencies of socialist countries had a unified system for registering the arriving US nationals. If anything, the KGB would not let a former citizen of the "bourgeois Czechoslovakia" and a patent antisovetchik go without a close watch. Laurus was certainly listed as one such activist, considering that all members of the Church Abroad had been nicked as "activists of the йmigrй anti-soviet center" in the KGB lingo.As soon as one such "activist" applied to the Czech embassy for a visa, a call immediately flew Moscow-ward over the "VCh" secret phone line:

-Would you like to make good use of him/her? –

To Moscow-based KGB-ists this phrase implied a possibility for promotion in rank or receiving a medal or order. No such person could go uncatered for: some degree of harm just had to be inflicted, whether it be recruiting, blackmailing, or anything. By hook or by crook he or she were to be discouraged from visiting the blessed land again. They called it "putting a person on the list for operative processing".

Laurus was "processed" every time he visited Czechoslovakia, and every time returned safely, and received his visa with no trouble. They say he had no trouble even after 1968, the year when Soviet troops had been moved into Czechoslovakia and the regime had become even more dreadful. In those years my parents often went to Karlovy Vary resorts on vacation on the invitation from the Czech KGB, and on returning my father used to tell me about the hard time the Czech chekists had combating the inner enemy. Laurus could not but be "approached" by our comrades not only from the local KGB but also from the Soviet agency whose huge filial in Prague outnumbered their local colleagues.

It is rumored that Laurus’s brother was holding a high position in the Czech Communist Party. One requirement a party functionary had to meet absolutely was that of "ideological purity". He was not to have a brother who was an anti-Soviet priest, and an American too! His only excuse to any rebuke was that "my brother is one of us; those who need to know it, know it".

2. The American Law is no Obstacle for the KGB

It is a tradition in KGB to give presents to higher-ranked officers, and this tradition goes back to the Stalin’s time. What may be a worthy present to Mr Putin for overpowering the Church Abroad? The chief resident of the Russian Intelligence in Washington has been racking his head lately over this crucial problem.

Whereas the answer is self-evident: the St John the Forerunner Cathedral in the heart of Washington. It will be a symbol of the victory of Russians over America, which used to seem to be a perfectly unattainable task some time before, a bastion of Russia’s strategic interests under the very nose of the White House! Putin will walk into the place not as an honorary guest but as the master. Like he walks into the big church of Christ the Savior in Moscow, the official church-house of Russian Authorities.

Let Mr Bush perform his master’s duties in the White House, while our Russian Mr President will do the same just a few steps away from him, upon a small spot of homeland in the hostile American environment. Imagine the propagandistic impact this will have in Russia! Putin’s presidential tenure will be sure to extend to more than one term!

The parishioners as yet feel secure, being sure that they own the church building and that the American Law protects them. But no, the KGB will NOT take them to court. It will take recourse to other methods, illegal but effective. Westerners grow up with a conviction that the law has an invincible power. We Russians are not so sure. It won’t be hard to substitute the parish activists: they are few and the KGB is as powerful as ever.

Many are wont to rely excessively on the institute of what they call a "board of trustees", thinking the Board would present a wall of bricks to any enemy’s attack. But the trustees are living people like you and me. Some would eventually develop a deep, and strange, infatuation with Mr Putin, like many ROCOR priests have done recently. Others, not as ready for a compromise, will be rendered harmless by different means. The field for the KGB operative activity is vast here.

The spy-post in Washington (located, incidentally, not far from the church, in the Russian Embassy) will be busy writing a multi-page plan of operations, will receive enough "resources", as they elusively call them in the Agency, to implement it, and will start action.

To capture the church, the mechanism worked out at the election campaign in Chechnya, where Russian soldiers are voting instead of the Chechens, will be used. In Washington the voters will be the officers, of both sexes for all that. Like locusts they will appear as it were from nowhere under the guise of emigrants, and will vote passing of the church into the Russian ownership. All foreign federal assets belong to the President’s Administration, that is to say, to Putin personally. Just to play up to him, the KGB will spare no effort, all the way to a war, the military action in Chechnya being one example.

Under Putin, the intelligence agencies feel dizzy from utter impunity. The unawaringly complacent western leaders are ready to forgive anything to their friend Volodya. Will they come to senses when they know he had made them accomplices in his crimes?

The chekist-parishioners will act knowingly, in accordance with the adopted plan. They will donate to the church fund such sums in comparison with which those of the true parishioners will look meager. During the last seven years the defense budget in Russia has grown five-fold, and it is not usual to save when it comes to meeting the Homeland’s needs. The true parishioners will eventually develop a sense of resentment and protestation at such cheeky behavior and will certainly turn their proud backs on them, as is considered normal in America. And this would play exactly into the hands of the KGB! The church capture operation will be performed in a clumsy and brutal manner, but is not the capture of the entire Russian Church Abroad being currently performed in just this manner?

Every Russian knows the truistic proverb that "there is no grip against a crow-bar", but it has to be explained to an American.

-Here is a big church in Washington for your personal needs, Comrade President! We recently took it over from local morons, - will be the report to Putin of the chief intelligence resident, and Putin will give an approving smile. The resident will get a Hero Star on his chest.

Soon afterwards, Putin will tell Bush with a tender feeling in his voice:

-I am so glad, George, that now I have my own church in Washington. I so much like praying there at nights…

Bush will nod his head respectfully: of course, the freedom of religion is first priority in the US. And then he will go on to compliment Putin, saying he perceived the soul of a true Christian in him.

Americans will let the attachment of the Church Abroad to the Russian Intelligence go unnoticed. They will not see in the process anything but a problem of inter-church relations. Smiling radiantly, American lawyers will watch the church being handed over to their anti-terrorist coalition ally. Because the letter of the law will be observed, and also because KGB agents may occasionally be met among American lawyers as well.

The US Authorities are not only hesitant about interfering in church affairs; they usually show signs of panic every time there is a chance of wounding somebody’s religious sentiments. By contrast, in Russia they do not have such fears, but behave in religious organizations authoritatively as if they were elephants in a crockery shop.

The clergy currently at work in the Cathedral will be wiped away by the powerful tempest. It will be Putin’s personal guards who will take over power here, like they do on all presidential premises. They will dismiss foreign priests, as they will not have access to state secrets.

I foresee their indignation and questions addressed to their new masters. Under Putin, however, the law enforcers have got the habit of not treating their subjects very considerately; time and again they may hit you with a gun butt. ROCOR priests who delighted in Putin so much previously, will come to know from personal experience the boorish manners of his subordinates. They will be just as helpless in front of them as many rank-and-file Russian people are. They will finally realize that is not the Moscow Patriarchate that the Church Abroad will have been united with.

When he attends Divine Services in the ancient Dormition Cathedral in the city of Vladimir, Putin unabashedly stands in the Czar’s corner. Why not build a replica in the Cathedral in Washington? Perhaps as a token of the forthcoming re-establishment of the Russian Monarchy. Some of the Russian йmigrй will all but salute such a development. The builders will be the jacks-of-all-hands of the KGB of course.

As he will stand there, Putin will experience a revengeful glee for the reason that the Cathedral had decades before been founded by the uncompromising foe of the Soviet regime, St John of San-Francisco.

3. The Abuse of St John of San-Francisco’s Blessed Memory

It began when the hierarchs of the Church Abroad engaged themselves in treacherous dealings with Mr Putin. At a meeting in New York in September of 2003 they presented him with an icon of the New-Martyr Grand Princess Elizabeth, the sister of Empress Alexandra. Why not of our saint hierarch John of San-Francisco, - inquired many attendants of parish meetings, -there would be more logic in that! The official interpretation was as follows: one of Putin’s numerous mansions is the Novo-Ogarevo castle, which had been expropriated from the Grand Princess by Bolsheviks in 1917. This explanation cannot but sound humiliating. Putin’s chekist predecessors cast Princess Elizabeth out of her castle, subjected to tortures and death – and for all this Putin receives her icon as a gift! The gift would have meaning had Putin denounced KGB’s bloody history and all its crimes. No way, today’s chekists are heroes once again.

The true reason was different. Archbishop John of San-Francisco was always outspoken in his anti-soviet and anti-communist attitudes, and such men are instinctively disliked in Putin’s Russia. They would rather accede to the politically neutral figure of Princess Elizabeth as the hallmark of the Church Abroad, who had not had time enough to do anything against the communist regime.

On July 3, 2004, an icon of St John suddenly fell down from an analogion where it had been lying peacefully in the Joy of All Who Sorrow Cathedral in San-Francisco where his relics repose. The glass of the icon case cracked. This happened precisely when Fr Peter Perekrestov (who is now more frequently called Comrade Perekrestov) was telling the guests of the 11th All-Diaspora Conference of the Young Orthodox that "we ought to leave the past behind us and go forward". The falling of the icon was a sure sign from God that Saint John would not agree with this statement.

I came across a video recording of a discussion of this event, which took place during the Patron Saint’s Feast-Day in St Serafim of Sarov Church in Sea Cliff, NY, the first of August. Metropolitan Laurus was present at the discussion, and his reactions were very revealing.

The first to speak was the young priest Fr Seraphim Gan. With a lachrymose voice he made every effort to persuade the congregation that this was no sign at all, just a mere coincidence, a result of the wind blast outdoors. It was with a heavy feeling that I watched this young priest telling lies. And it was part of his effort to promote the idea of a union with Moscow. Oh, many were orations of this type that I had listened to at Party conferences in the Soviet Union!

Archpriest Sergiy Klestov, the Rector of the parish, delivered an indignant speech of rebuke.

-Can and may we ever leave our past history behind? – said he excitedly, - We are successors to the St Patriarch Tikhon, to the New Martyrs, and are we to denounce all this? Disavow Vladykas Anthony Khrapovitskiy, Anastasias the First Hierarch, Averky and Filaret? When the icon fell…we were given a great sign…and it is a sin to laugh about it…

All during the rebellious speech, Laurus was nervously eating something from the table and soon afterwards left the meeting. Not long after that, Fr Sergiy was ousted from the parish. Fr Seraphim Gan was appointed as the new Rector. No comment…

The advocates of a Unia with Moscow are characteristically prone to lies and behind the scene intriguing, very much as though they passed training with the soviet party apparatus. For instance, Archpriest George Larin of Nyack, NY, recently paid a visit to the ailing Archbishop Alipy of Chicago who is known not to have sympathy for MP, and threatened him with forced resignation and custody in the Jordanville Monastery if he would as much as let out a squeak against the Union.

Lies and coercion are devil’s devices, are they not?

By God’s connivance, it was precisely the San Francisco where Saint John’s relics repose which was to become the hotbed of the defeatist policies. This must have been the result of the long-term expert spying activities of the KGB residents in SF. No wonder then that the All-Diaspora Local Council which is expected to decide the matter, is planned to take place here and not in New York where the Synod is stationed. Can, however, one imagine a higher degree of disrespect for the blessed memory of St John, when right over his relics they will solemnly announce that his much beloved Church Abroad is surrendered to the Stalinist MP.

It will be not long before they also bury General Denikin (one of the central figures of the White Guard resistance to the communist revolution) under the communist red banner in Moscow. Putin will be much pleased when they play the Bolshevist Party hymn over his grave. Thus will a short red-haired boy born to a poor workers’ family satiate his class hatred.

Metropolitan Valentine Makes Pastoral Visit to Ukraine and Southern Russia, and Presides at Celebration in Moscow

2005-08-07T15:26:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin - Vertograd, Smela (Ukraine) - Sukhodol (Ukraine) - Sovetka (Rostov province) - Sukhumi - Moscow - Suzdal)

On June 23rd, His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, and His Grace Ilarion, Bishop of Smela, served evening services in the cathedral Church of the Mother of God dedicated to Her icon “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in the town of Smela in the Cherkassk province of the Ukraine. On the following day, June 24th, they served the Divine Liturgy, at which all present communed the Body and Blood of Christ.

On June 25th, Metropolitan Valentine, together with His Grace Geronty, Bishop of Sukhodol, served the all-night vigil, and the Divine Liturgy on the following day, June 26th, in the cathedral Church of St. Xenia of St. Petersburg in the city of Sukhodol, Lugana province, Ukraine. At the Divine Liturgy, at the behest of His Grace Geronty, Hieromonk Boniface, a servant of the altar for more than 10 years, was raised to the rank of Igumen, and Deacon Alexander Selikhov was ordained to the priesthood. After the Divine Liturgy, all present were invited to trapeza, at which Mr. S. I. Yakubov, head of the local city administration, and his staff, were in attendance. After the trapeza, Metropolitan Valentine awarded Mr. Yakubov, Mrs. V. I. Lisitsa, director of a local school, and Mr. V. V. Tokarov, the starosta of the church, with letters of appreciation. The Metropolitan inspected three chapels, which were built through the care and efforts of His Grace Bishop Geronty, Archimandrite James (Antonov), Mrs. V. I. Lisitsa, and Mr. V. V. Tokarov.

Metropolitan Valentine then met with Igumen Artemy (Smitchenko), rector of the Suzdal synodal metochion in the town of Sovetka, who was also given a letter of appreciation for his help in fixing up the metochion. The dean of the Stavropol circuit of the Suzdal diocese of the ROAC, Archpriest George Novakovsky, and the rector of St. Olga’s Church in the city of Zheleznovodsk, Archpriest Roman Novakovsky, informed the Metropolitan about the continuing persecutions against the clergy and people of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, which are being organized by Theophan (Ashurkov), head of the Stavropol diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, with the help of the local and regional authorities. During the course of his trip throughout the northern Caucasus, Vladyka Valentine also visited Abkhazia.

On July 16th and 17th, for the feast of the holy Royal Martyrs, His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine presided at the all-night vigil and Divine Liturgy at the Church of the Holy Royal Martyrs located in the Golovin cemetery in Moscow, where he was joined by the rector of the church and dean of the Moscow circuit of the Suzdal diocese, Archpriest Michael Ardov, and Fr. Deacon Alexis Sokolov.

On July 17th, Metropolitan Valentine returned to Suzdal.

Stavropol Judge Recognizes Rights of ROAC to Church in Zheleznovodsk

2005-08-07T15:25:00.001-07:00

(Portal-Credo. Ru - Vertograd, Zheleznovodsk (Stavropol area))

On July 22nd, a civil affairs court in the Stavropol region has recognized the right of the parishioners of St. Olga’s Church in Zheleznovodsk to defend their church building, which early in 2005 had been arbitrarily transferred to the Moscow Patriarchate by the mayor’s office in that city.

As explained in an interview with a reporter for Portal-Credo. Ru, the rector of St. Olga’s in Zheleznovodsk, which is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, Archpriest Roman Novakovsky, and thirty members of the parish, who were directly involved in building the church from 1982 through 1989, had decided to sue the mayor’s office on behalf of the entire parish. However, the Zheleznovodsk court refused to hear the case brought by the “alternative Orthodox,” declaring that the parishioners themselves could have no claim to the property of the church. After this, the community turned to the regional court in Mineral Waters, but there again, the judge simply declined to hear the matter. Only after an appeal was sent to the Stavropol regional court, did the case receive a hearing on its merits.

Fr. Roman Novakovsky further explained that the parishioners, and even the judges themselves, were shocked by the behavior of the city officials in the court of arbitration in Zhelznovodsk. On July 20th, while the court was in session, a letter from the city’s mayor, Anatoly Zubtsov, was read aloud in which he transferred all of his authority concerning the matter against the ROAC parish to the representatives of the Stavropol Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate. The mayor of Zheleznovodsk announced in the secular court that he has full confidence in Bishop Theophan, and further stated that the MP diocese would be appearing as co-defendants in the suit brought by the “alternative Orthodox.” The judge ordered the MP diocese to present convincing documents showing why the church, built by the parishioners of the ROAC, should be considered property of the MP. Bishop Theophan (Ashurkov) was given until September to respond.

Representatives of the MP and ROCOR(L) hold another round of discussions

2005-08-07T15:25:00.000-07:00

(Interfax - Vertograd, Moscow)

“Problems of an ecclesiastical/canonical nature” were the subjects of the fifth round of discussions on the unification of the ROCOR(L) and the Moscow Patriarchate. The meetings of the “unity committees” took place in Moscow July 26-28.

In particular, under discussion were the ecclesiastical status of several clergymen, the structure of certain establishments of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia located on the “canonical territory” of the Moscow Patriarchate, and relations between the ROCOR and church groups in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria not in communion with their official Local Churches.

In the words of one representative of the Dept. for External Ecclesiastical Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archpriest Nicholas Balashov, questions of a practical nature were also looked at, concerning relations between parishes in dioceses belonging to the ROCOR and the MP in countries with Russian emigrants.

As was explained to reporters by Archpriest Nicholas Artemov, ROCOR(L) member of the committee, clergy belonging to the ROCOR(L) inside Russia will be transferred to the MP after the unification; however, during the “transitional period” they will be administered by Bishop Evtikhy (Kurochkin), who will become a vicar bishop of Patriarch Alexis II. In turn the “Lavr-ites” have suggested that the MP parishes abroad should be transferred to the corresponding dioceses of the ROCOR(L), but the leadership of the MP categorically refuses to look at that question.

At the invitation of Archimandrite Tikhon, the local head of the Presentation Monastery in Moscow, the members of both commissions traveled to Ryazan province, where the St. Seraphim Skete of Presentation Monastery is situated.

New president chosen in the ROCOR(V)-TROC (True Russian Orthodox Church Lazarie brunch)

2005-08-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

(Church Bulletin - Vertograd, Odessa (Ukraine))

An extraordinary meeting of the Synod of Bishops of a “branch” of ROCOR(V), which had been headed by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko), took place in the town of Veliky Dal’nik, Odessa province (Ukraine). On July 7th, on the feast of the Nativity of the Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord, John, following the Divine Liturgy and a panikhida for Schema-Archbishop Lazar, elections were held for a new president of the Synod. By majority vote taken during secret balloting, the choice fell upon Bishop Tikhon (Pasechnik) of Omsk and Siberia, the youngest in rank of all the bishops.

The next day, Bishop Tikhon was raised to the rank of Archbishop. The rite of elevation was performed by Archbishop Benjamin of the Black Sea and Kuban, Bishop Dionysi of Novgorod and Tver, Bishop Germogen of Chernigov and Gomel, and Bishop Irenei of Verna and Semirechensk.

By a decision of the Synod, the orphaned Odessa-Tambov diocese was transferred temporarily to the administration of Archbishop Benjamin (the vicariate of Voronezh-Tambov with parishes in Russia is assigned to him) and Bishop Germogen (the parishes in the Ukraine).

Igumen Paul (Goncharov) was assigned as rector of the cathedral church of St. John of Kronstadt in Odessa. The parishes of Odessa province were assigned to a newly founded Odessa deanery.

The archiepiscopal residence where Archbishop Lazar formerly lived, together with its house church dedicated to the Derzhavnaya (She Who reigns) Icon of the Mother of God, was given the status of synodal metochion. According to the last will of Vladyka Lazar, the men’s skete will remain at the synodal metochion.

Three American ROAC Clerics Suspended by the First Hierarch of the ROAC

2005-08-05T16:52:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin—Vertograd: Suzdal)

His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, in his ukase #63 of July 13/26, 2005, has suspended three ROAC priests in the US from serving: Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, former dean of the ROAC parishes in the US and rector of the Church of the Holy Resurrection in Worcester, Massachusetts, Archpriest Spyridon Schneider, rector of St. John the Russian Church in Ipswich, Massachusetts, and another priest from the same church, Fr. Christopher Johnson. As stated in the ukase, these three clergymen became subject to canonical punishment for “violating church discipline, intrigue, ceasing to commemorate their ruling bishop at divine services, disseminating negative propaganda among their fellow clergy, and introducing disorder in the Deposition of the Mantle Convent” in Suzdal.
According to information received from the official publication of the Suzdal Diocese of the ROAC, “Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin,” in the middle of July, Protopresbyter Victor Melehov came to Russia without informing his ruling bishop, Metropolitan Valentine, or the hierarchical Synod. At the ROAC church in Dimitrov, a suburb of Moscow, he held a meeting to which he invited Archbishop Anthony of Yaransk and Vyatsk with the aim of involving him in schism, and with the participation of Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumsk and Abkhazia, “whom they also intended to involve in the schism,” have an independent bishop consecrated for the US (their candidate for the episcopacy was Fr. Christopher Johnson). Protopresbyter Victor Melehov and Fr. Spyridon Schneider ceased commemorating their ruling bishop at divine services, Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, and in his place, they uncanonically began commemorating the name of Archbishop Anthony, a member of the hierarchical Synod of the ROAC. According to the magazine “Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin,” Frs. Victor and Spyridon pressured Archpriest Dionysi McGowan, rector of St. Basil if Kineshma Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, intending to lead him into their schism as well.
On July 19, two novices belonging to Fr. Victor’s community in Dimitrov, arrived in Suzdal and began calling on the sisters of the Deposition of the Mantle Convent, whose head is the catacomb skhi-igumenia Euphemia, and trying to induce them join in with the schism. They also made similar overtures to Archbishop Anthony and several other members of the clergy and laity in Suzdal.
At the meeting of the hierarchical Synod, which took place on July 21st in Suzdal, Archbishop Anthony related in detail the efforts of the suspended clergymen in trying to start their new schism. According to certain information, Protopresbyter Victor Melehov managed to get written agreement from Archbishop Anthony to separate from the Synod, which he later recanted at the hierarchical Synod meeting.
Frs. Victor Melehov and Spyridon Schneider are well known in True Orthodox circles as “errant clergymen,” as they have changed jurisdiction many times and started many conflicts. Before their acceptance into the ROAC, they were with the ROCOR(V), where Fr. Spyridon was suspended from serving, and Fr. Victor was defrocked.

Feasts, Awards and Ordinations in Suzdal

2005-08-05T16:47:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin - Vertograd, Suzdal)

On July 20-21, in the Tsar Constantine Cathedral of the Suzdal Diocese of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, the feast of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God was triumphantly observed with a large group of clergy in attendance. The all-night vigil and Divine Liturgy were served by His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir, His Eminence Archbishop Theodore of Borisov and Otradna, Administrator of the Synod of Bishops, His Eminence Archbishop Anthony of Yaransk and Vyatka, His Grace Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk, and His Grace Bishop Sebastian of Chelyabinsk. The sermon was delivered by His Eminence Archbishop Theodore.
The feast of the Kazan Icon is one of the most highly revered feasts in Suzdal; people come from many nearby towns and villages to take part in it. This is due to the fact that for many years during the Soviet period (1940-1970) the only church in Suzdal that was open was the Kazan Icon Church across the street from the shopping district (the church is now in the possession of the MP). In 1978, this church was closed and desecrated, and the Orthodox community was given the Tsar Constantine Church to use, which had also been desecrated. For a long time there was an ancient wonder-working copy of the Kazan icon there, which was stolen during a burglary in 2002.
At the services, several members of the catacomb communities belonging to the ROAC were in attendance.
On July 28th, the Orthodox people of Suzdal prayed especially hard while celebrating the feast of the holy Equal of the Apostles Grand Prince Vladimir. The festive service was held in the Tsar Constantine Cathedral. According to tradition, the holy Prince Vladimir, after his baptism, arrived in Suzdal, where he baptized his Suzdal regiment of soldiers in the waters of the Kamenka River. At the site of the baptism, in order to commemorate the event, St. Vladimir, whose baptismal name was Basil, ordered the construction of a monastery in honor of his patron saint, St. Basil the Great.
At noon, His Grace Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk, served a moleben to St. Vladimir at the St. Vladimir Chapel located in the Znamenny Cemetery in Suzdal. After the moleben, "Many Years" was sung for the Orthodox Episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church, and for Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff and his family. Fr. Vladimir is the rector of the St. Nicholas Parish of the ROAC in the New York area, and was celebrating his nameday that day. It was due to the care and donations of Fr. Vladimir that the chapel in the Znamenny Cemetery was built. In attendance at this moleben were His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine and Archbishop Theodore of Borisov and Sanina.
On Sunday, July 31st, at the Divine Liturgy in the Tsar Constantine Cathedral, His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine ordained a novice of the monastery dedicated to the Holy New Martyrs of Russia in Suzdal, Dimitry Karpenko, to the diaconate. Fr. Dimitry was born in 1985 in the village of Sovetka, in the Neklinovsky region of Rostov province, and from his early childhood had served as an altar boy in the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul located inside the synodal metochion there. In 2003, he became a novice at the Suzdal Monastery of the Holy New Martyrs of Russia, and served as subdeacon for Metropolitan Valentine. He will be serving as deacon in Suzdal.
On August 1st, on the feast of St. Seraphim the Wonderworker of Sarov, His Eminence Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir served the all-night vigil and Divine Liturgy at the Tsar Constantine Cathedral. During the Liturgy, at the minor entrance, Vladyka Metropolitan awarded the gold pectoral cross to one of the monks of the Monastery of the Holy New Martyrs, Hieromonk Seraphim (Kataev), and wished him a happy nameday. The clergy and people also prayerfully remembered His Eminence Archbishop Seraphim of Sukhumi and Abkhazia, who was away on a pastoral visit to his catacomb communities.

Volgograd Diocese of MP Begins Persecution of ROAC Community

2005-08-05T16:46:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin - Vertograd, Volgograd)

A community of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church named for St. Michael the Archangel in Volgograd, and in particular its pastor, Archpriest Victor Ulyanov, have become subjects of a slander campaign begun by the local diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate.
On May 4th, Aleksei Pluzhnikov, a clergyman of the Volgograd Diocese of the MP, who serves as a priest at the Sts. Peter & Paul Chapel in the city of Volgograd, region of Sovetka, appeared at the parish icon shop, which is located in the trade center, and demanded that it cease its operations, threatening one parishioner, T. A. Pakhomova, with physical blows. This all took place in the presence of many witnesses, who were scandalized by the behavior of this "pastor." Several days later, Pluzhnikov crudely insulted and threatened a lady parishioner of St. Michael the Archangel Church who happened to be passing by his chapel.
On May 17th, this "pastor" started distributing leaflets throughout the region containing lies and calumny against Fr. Victor Ulanyov, claiming that "Victor Ulyanov stole the church of St. Michael the Archangel in the village of GES and began to illegally and blasphemously perform services, and to buy and sell ecclesiastical merchandise. For this reason, all of the merchandise sold in the icon shop is "hot," not blessed, and defiled, and all of the rituals and prayer lists ordered in the icon shop are without grace and invalid, and that all of the donations are being stolen." Fr. Victor was called a "thief and a schismatic."
On May 23rd, Fr. Victor Ulyanov submitted a statement to the district attorney pointing out that the actions of this "priest" are subject to articles 129 and 148 of the UK RF (legal code of the Russian Federation) and article 1 of Federal Law #114-FZ of July 25, 2002. He also informed the administrative head of the Bureau for the Liaison and Cooperation Department of Religious Organizations of Volgograd province and the region of OVD.
Soon afterwards, Metropolitan German of Volgograd himself decided to get involved. On June 17th, he sent a letter to the director of the trade center, in which he asserted that Fr. Victor had no right to engage in the trade of church supplies, collect donations, and represent the "Orthodox Church." Concluding his letter, he called Fr. Victor a "thief and a fake," and asked for "cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church" in throwing Fr. Victor out of the store. Fortunately, however, the authorities demonstrated reserve and did not give in to the provocations of the MP.
In the words of Fr. Victor, "through these actions of one of their psychologically unbalanced "priests," the MP has again shown its true face to the community at large; the face of a "commercial enterprise" servicing the "religious needs of the population." "For these newly reformatted pastors, unfortunately, what comes first is not Christ the Savior, but mammon; not the preaching of the truth, and love, but the desire to make a killing, and avoid losing market share for their religious supplies and services. It is disgusting to see their attempts to pressure the authorities and the community, to impose their own opinions, their own understanding of Orthodoxy, and their own judgment. They think that they are still in the days of pre-revolutionary Russia, and that the government is obliged to take their side and meet all of their demands. But these dirty tactics, PR, and smear campaigns against those who don't agree with them--these are not the signs of the disciples of Christ, but rather to the contrary, of the servants of antichrist."
The Volgograd community of St. Michael the Archangel was received into the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church on June 12th, 2001, and its rector is Fr. Victor Ulyanov. After the Moscow Patriarchate evicted the community from the church that it itself built, Fr. Victor began to hold services in a house church in the village of GES. His community consists of parishioners of varying ages and an active core element. They are well acquainted with the catechism and history of the Church, and are learning how to read Church Slavonic. Being closely situated nearby a hospital that periodically treats children from local orphanages, the parish helps them out with clothing, shoes, and food. All of these things come from the parishioners themselves; the community has no wealthy sponsors. The parish has also taken a pediatric rehabilitation center for disabled children under its wing, where they arrange parties, teas, and discussions.

Ninth Clergy-Laity Congress to be Held in Suzdal in September

2005-08-05T16:44:00.000-07:00

(Suzdal Diocesan Bulletin - Vertograd, Suzdal)

By decison of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church, the Ninth Clergy-Laity Congress of the Russian Orthodox Church will be held from September 3rd through the 9th in Suzdal. As in the past, the congress will be of a general nature, i. e. it will be open to all interested members of the clergy and laity of the Church of Russia.
Expected topics for discussion include current problems facing Church life, in particular, the convocation of the first Hierarchical Council of the Russian Orthodox (Autonomous) Church and its related expenses.
The previous congress (#8) took place in May, 2001, in Suzdal,and was incorporated into the festivities surrounding the canonization of the 20th century confessor of Orthodoxy, St. Philaret, First Hierarch of the ROCOR. Almost immediately after this congress, an apparently well planned attack started up against the Church in connection with the activities of Fr. Andrew Osetrov, as well as the persecution against Metropolitan Valentine, First Hierarch of the ROAC, that was done through the courts. All of these things upset the normal course of Church life and caused a postponement of any further congresses and councils.

Former ROAC Archbishop in USA receives radical Greek Old Calendarist Priests

2005-08-05T16:43:00.000-07:00

(NFTU - Vertograd, Denver, Colorado)

Two priests have left the True Orthodox Church of Greece in order to join the synod of the former Archbishop Gregory (Abu Assaly) of Dormition Skete near the American city of Denver--Fr. Athanasios Tsorvas, and Fr. Komnenos Hatzileris.
Fr. Athansios, well known for his extreme ecclesiastical views and his unconcealed sympathy for the position of the former archbishop, had been serving lately in a house chapel belonging to the GOC Synod of Greece, but his views differed greatly from those of the Synod. For many observers, his sudden departure for another jurisdiction came as no surprise.
The story with Fr. Komnenos is a completely different one. According to various sources, he was suspended from serving for three years in the year 2000 after it became known that he figured in a police report in a matter concerning soliciting the services of a prostitute. Citing reasons of health, Fr. Komnenos retired, apparently for purely practical reasons.
As far as concerns the former Archbishop Gregory, he was removed from his membership in the Synod of the ROAC after accusations of having re-baptized members of the True Orthodox Church, and for making claims of having jurisdiction over the entire Church of the diaspora.
In the middle of July, 2005, the former archbishop stated in a communiqué that he was the victim of a slander campaign by "self-proclaimed lay people," and that the First Hierarch of the ROAC, Metropolitan Valentine, should be removed from his position. He also faulted the Synod of the ROAC for not standing up to the Metropolitan and for caving in to his will.

The convent in Suzdal celebrated its patronal feast

2005-07-20T02:12:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd: Suzdal)

The Convent of the Deposition of the Robe of the Mother of God celebrated its patronal feast in Suzdal on July 15. The Divine Liturgy in the monastery was done by Archbishop Theodore of Borisovo and Otradnoe with Hegumen Symeon and Hieromonk Seraphim.

After Liturgy and a procession Vladyka Theodore congratulated the superior of the convent Schema–Abbess Evfimia and the sisters. He added that this feast always reminded about the ancient monastery of that feast that had been lost for True Orthodoxy. In 1994 the city administration was ready to give the monastery buildings to the community of nuns of the ROAC, and the documents were being prepared, when Patriarch Alexey called the President Boris Eltsin and the buildings were transferred to the MP.

So the convent of the ROAC is located in a regular house that was restored by the Synod. The convent was many times attacked and once put on fire and almost destroyed, but later restored again. Ten nuns live in the convent, most of them are catacombnics, who came to Suzdal in the beginning in 1990th, as well as in the second ROAC convent of Suzdal that is dedicated to St. John of Shanghai.

The nuns work in the trapeznaya, in the garden and in church. They also restore icons. The convent has the venerable icon "Joy of all who sorrow" and the relics of Holy princes Andrew of Bogolubovo, Gleb and George of Vladimir.

Bishop Gabriel (Chemodakov), ROCOR(L): "For most of our flock, it is unclear why we suddenly have a different position toward the Moscow Patriarchate"

2005-07-20T02:09:00.000-07:00

Portal-Credo.Ru: Could you comment about the four documents which recently appeared simultaneously on the official sites of the ROCOR(L) and the ROC MP and were worked out conjointly by their commissions on dialogue for unification and approved by the leadership of both Churches, especially the part where the activity of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) was referred to as his great "sacrifice of service?" How much influence do these documents have on the process of unification between these two Churches?

Bishop Gabriel: For now, it is too early to say that because these documents were accepted, we are proceeding directly to unification. Rather, these documents should be seen as some kind of blueprint for future development. I must stress, and this is not only my own opinion, but, I assume, the opinion of some of the other bishops of our Church, that we must first come to some kind of mutual agreement on all of the problems that face us.

As far as the Declaration is concerned, perhaps these documents have already addressed these problems. I think that in these documents there are many things, even wording, which could lead someone astray and give the impression that we have surrendered our position and have already fully adopted the position of the MP. This is not the case. These commissions have expended a lot of effort. In the documents which they have produced, of course, there are many things which have upset me a lot, and upset many others too. For example, the "sacrifice (podvig) of service" of Metropolitan Sergius. I, of course, could never call his service a "sacrifice," and I think that many people are upset by this expression. At the same time, however, the MP’s commission has had to acquiesce to a lot of what we wanted and agree at least that the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius was essentially wrong. The Church simply cannot behave as Metropolitan Sergius did, no matter what the circumstances of life then might have been.

It should be remembered that we are going to have an All-diaspora Council next year, at which every diocese will be represented by delegates chosen from among the clergy and the laity. But no matter what decisions come out of this council, they must be ratified by a Synod of the bishops which is to be held right after the Council.

I might point out that we have yet to begin a serious discussion about Ecumenism, but so far have been talking mostly about the Declaration, about Metropolitan Sergius himself, and about what kind of relationship should exist between the Church and the State. Too little time has been devoted to the question of Ecumenism.

You may have noticed yourself the day that these documents appeared on the MP’s website that the top news item of the day was devoted to Patriarch Alexey II’s meeting with a delegation from the World Council of Churches. Our documents, however, only made third or fourth place. This is unsettling to see for anyone, but especially for us abroad. This tells me that solving the issue of Ecumenism will be very problematic indeed. For this reason, to speak of some kind of unification, as long as the issue of Ecumenism remains unsolved, is premature.

Q: How are the bishops of the ROCOR(L) who are in favor of joining the ROC MP getting along with the bishops who take a stronger, principled stand like the one the Church Abroad always had?

Bishop Gabriel: I would not presume to speak for my fellow bishops. I want to think, and I hope, that all of the bishops of the ROCOR are in agreement with the idea that we cannot talk of any unification until all of the difficult questions have been resolved. If, for now, we have come to some kind of agreement, to some degree or another, (although this is also hotly disputed; take for example the Declaration, Metropolitan Sergius himself and his service, and his so-called "sacrifice"), nevertheless, I am convinced that this agreement will be the cause of much tension and disagreement for us. I am sure that none of our bishops is going to turn a blind eye to some of these issues simply for the sake of speeding up the process towards some kind of unification. To ignore these things or to say that they are no longer as important to us as they have been all these past years would be impossible, because we have the flock standing by, watching, and it is very upset by this process.

Q: I’ve just got to ask the following question then: What does the flock think about this process; and the clergy, excluding the bishops?

Bishop Gabriel: There are bishops who are more inclined to a more speedy unification process than others. This is the case among the laity as well. However, I am under the impression, knowing the situation and the mood in the dioceses, that the larger part of our flock, I am reluctant to use the expression "vast majority," but simply put, the larger part of our flock, is looking at the prospect of unification with a great deal of apprehension, with alarm and worry, because they mistrust the present structure of the MP. Even if we agreed with the MP on all points, this mistrust would still remain.

Our church-going people understand what separated us in the past and still separates us. Our people do not think that the time for unification has arrived; that the time is ripe. We cannot yet say with genuine certainty and with a clear conscience that the time has come for unification because all of the questions and problems have been resolved. I know that there are many of our people who desire unification, who openly speak and write about it, but I think that I would not be wrong by saying that most of them, if not completely opposed to it, nevertheless regard this process with apprehension.

Q: I am going to ask a very provocative and pointed question, which you may decline to answer if you wish, but I am going to ask it anyway. A rather large number of Orthodox Christians, both inside Russia and abroad, consider that the MP is an uncanonical and illegitimate creation in general, from an ecclesiastical point of view, because practically all of its present higher-ranking bishops received their appointments during the Soviet period with the blessing, not simply of the authorities and atheistic leadership, but under the full control of the KGB. And with this kind of structure in place, until its entire leadership is replaced, which was put into position by an atheistic government, it is simply impossible to have anything to do with it. It is a similar situation to when the Lord led the Israelites for forty years in the desert, so that they would not carry the infection of slavery into the Promised Land…

Bishop Gabriel: I think that there are many members of our flock who are of the same opinion. Just exactly as you say. This is the impression that all of us had before. That was our understanding of the MP. We used to say that we had always been, and were, a part of the Church of Russia, but we never said that the MP was the main part of the Church of Russia; or even the "Mother-Church," as she likes to call herself. There was even a question about whether or not she could even call herself a part of the Church of Russia. For this reason, for most of our flock, it is unclear what has changed and why we suddenly have a different position toward the Moscow Patriarchate, as if there had never been any other. But there was another. It is troubling for the flock, and for me, that this cooperation with the MP is under way, and although the government is no longer communist, there is still a lot left over from the communist period. For example, not very long ago at all, the Patriarch congratulated the communist president of Viet Nam on the victory of Communism. This, as you may know, is shocking for us and more than troubles us. And there are many such examples. This shows that, in any case, the Church is still not separate from the government. It continues to cooperate with it, and maybe, just as before, the government continues to be the one giving the orders; how the Church is to live, to develop. Many people are worried that through unification, we will lose our own freedom, our autonomy and rightful position upon which we have stood all these years.

Correspondent: Vladimir Oyvin

Arbitration Court in Stavropol Decided to Give St Olga Church Building of ROAC to Local Diocese of MP

2005-04-25T02:15:00.000-07:00

(Vertograd', Zheleznovodsk \Stavropol'sky region\)

On April 6, the Arbitration court for Stavropol decided to transfer the the St Olga Temple belonging to the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church to the jurisdiction of the Stavropol Diocese of the MP. This decision is a reversal of the previous one from July 22, 2004, which acknoweleged the right of the community to its own Church building.

The parish of St Olga Temple has more than 2,000 parishoners, not only from Zheleznovodsk, but from other districts of the Caucasus, including from Pyatygorska and Essentuki. A temple was built in 1989 on the community's facilities. The Moscow Patriarchate, neither through its Stavropol diocese nor through the city administration, did not pay a penny for the foundation of this Church, according to Priest Roman Novakovsky. Only recently the building of the temple was even officially recognized, and before this the city refused to help the community in any way. All the while, the city authorities tried to disperse the ROAC community.

Mayor Anatoly Zubtsov of Zheleznovodsk, through Decree #891 from October 3, 2003, deprived the St Olga Church community the right to the lot of land on which their Church was built on. They had held the land since 1993. Then the ministry of justice attempted to deprive the community of legal registration. These efforts were yet unsuccessful. Finally, the Civil Court acknowledged the right of the community to the domain of their temple and obliged formal registration to be drafted for the recognition on the part of the civil authorities of the building.

This decision determined by the law was not appealed and it was given legal force. But then it was abolished in an appellate court. The Stavropol Diocese of the MP attacked with two lawsuits-- one for illegal domain of the property and one to evict the community from the building.

The St Olga Community of ROAC has the originals of all the financial and estimate documents on the building of a temple, work agreements, et cetera. In the same area, the Stavropol Diocese of the MP has only the documents about the formal recogniztion of the building, hurriedly made by Mayor Zubtsov of Zheleznovosk. He claimed that BTY, the city land committee, designed all the documents on the domain by building and by an area on the name of dioceses. Already a diocese by next day had certificates about all the structures, despite the fact that the question of ownership was already examined by the court.

ROAC's St Olga Church community is currently arguing a complaint in Appellate court.

Resolution of Pastoral Conference of Odessa and Zaporozhia Dioceses of ROCOR (L)

2005-04-25T02:10:00.000-07:00

On April, 19-20 of 2005 in the Odessa diocesan headquarters of St Michael, passed the preparatory prayers of communion for the clergies of the Odessa and Zaporozhia dioceses. After Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, which was overseen by Bishop Agafangel, a diocesan conference took place in which issues of diocesan life were discussed, and a Resolution in which the conditions for mutual recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate was unanimously accepted.

RESOLUTION OF PASTORAL CONFERENCE
ODESSA AND ZAPOROZHIA DIOCESES OF ROCOR (L)

As we go through the Lenten preparations for communion in the God-fearing city of Odessa, we give thanks to the Lord to be given the possibility for our confessions to be heard and to serve together the Divine Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts and partake of the communion of the Precious Body and Blood of Christ. After the completion of Divine Service, at the Dining Hall the pastoral conference took place passed at the St Michael Church, during which the issues relating to the day to day life of the diocese were discussed. Considerable attention was given to the relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and prospects negotiated now between the respective commissions for concilation. In connection with primary meaning of the root of the negotiation process for the matter of our concern, the clergy present here considered it useful to issue a reminder about the main principles, and also the positions resulting from these principles, which lie in basis of our division, and which till today are not resolved.

1. The New Martyrs and confessors of Russia, from the beginning with Metropolitans Cyril of Kazan and Joseph of Petrograd, and also subsequent Fathers of Russian Church Abroad and Catacomb Church always spoke about the need, after the persecutions of the faithful have ended, to bring to a free Sobor an appraisal of the acts of the Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). The need of such an honest estimation of an this case for the instruction of future generations of the Russian people was stated after the Episcopal Sobor of 2001 by our then our new First-Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus. On this basis, the documents developed during negotiations by joint commissions can not be considered satisfactory, if they only express "how must it be" in terms of the relations between the Church with the state, but do not honestly express "how it was", to wit:

- the false, apostate nature of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius from the year 1927 and the church policy based on it (Metropolitan Anthony, ROCOR First-Hierarch of Blessed Memory, called it treachery);

- the usurpation of church power by Metropolitan Sergius through the creation of an uncanonical Synod and misappropriation to their authorities of the first bishop of country with subsequent punishments inflicted on all true Orthodox hierarchs, clergy and laymen;

-the renunciations of the New Martyrs and confessors and all those persecuted for the faith, labelling them as "political criminals" from the side of the Metropolitan Sergius and other Bishops of the MP;

-the collaboration of the Bishops of MP (including now as well) with the special organs of the rgodless authority (GPU, NKVD, KGB, FSB);

- false statements before world public about the absence of persecutions of the faith in the USSR and other false statements in order to please the godless authority.

The necessity and actuality of the foregoing is underlined by the recent fact of the appearance in edition of Sretensky monastery of book of S. Fomin "Guardianship of the house Lord", eulogizing Metropolitan Sergius with the benediction and with the preface of present head of the MP in which he actually specifies that Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) is a saint, and also that in fact, with the blessing of the Nyzhegorodsk diocese of MP in Russia an area is already adopted and a monument being prepared in honour of "Patriarch Sergius" (in Arzamase). In ROC-MP, there must be an end to the artificially implanted honour of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as a "rescuer of Church"; by contrast, it is desirable to set up a special committee on investigation of his acts (in particular, it is necessary to check up information about his letter to the NKVD in 1935 with the purpose of stopping an exit from the conclusion of the legitimate locum tenens of the Church, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk.)

That sergianism is not removed in MP is blatantly shown by the participation of the Patriarchate (beginning from its highest level Bishops) attested to in their electioneering in Ukraine for the side of one of candidates. By this participation-- which was in direct violation of both church and civil laws-- the MP showed its unity with a local criminal administrative resource and its complete dependence on external political forces.

2. In obedience to Holy canons, joint prayers are with forbidden with heretics, the more so with heterodox, and this is not only the case with being vested and in a public service but also in domestic terms ("even if it was in a house" - 10 Apost. canons) and other cases (for example, before a meal). The order of our actions in similar situations is foreseen by Determination of Episcopal Cathedral of ROCOR from October, 13/26, 1953. It is necessary to work for one mind the with ROC-MP in this question. "Faithful in small and great things" (Lk. 16,10). One of recent cases of joint prayer with heretics took place in September, 2004, when the First Hierarch of ROC-MP, Alexei II was present at the blessing by the Armenian Catholicos of the Monophysite hierarchy, Garegynom II, laying 16 stones of the foundation of a Monophysite temple in Moscow and even jointly with him placing a time capsule in the foundation of this structure.

3. At the altar section of the Temple of Christ the Savior, the main temple of MP, a "khachkar" cross stone is set in memory of such joint prayer and the date of the blessing of this stone is August 8, 2000 by ROC-MP Patriarch Alexei II and also by Monophysite Catholicos Garegynon II. This stone is, according to the statement of Garegynon II, "a blessing to the Holy Russian land". The Apostolic canons forbid both joint prayers (c. 33) and adopting blessings (c. 32) from heretics. Objectively speaking, what is actually occuring, using church terminology, "desecration from the heretics" of a village cemetery of main temple of ROC-MP in the altar area. The religious, instead of social character of benediction, is confirmed by the image on the stone of a Cross in the Monophysite tradition. It would be desirable, that after the proper appraisal of the aforesaid event, a memorable sign was carried in a place more proper to him (a Park of friendship of the people, an award from the Society of Russian-Armenian friendship or something similar);

4. It is necessary to mention in conciliatory documents about the statements about the unacceptability for Orthodoxy of the dogmatic consciousness of Chambesy in 1990 (with the Monophysites) and Balamand of 1993 (with Catholics)-- documents which were before signed by representatives of the MP at the level of official delegations, caused large embarrassments to Orthodox congregations, and were left in a "suspended", i.e. not ratified, but also not denounced state.

5. We consider the new introductions of ROC-MP's new status of "associated with the WCC" to be rather dubious. If MP does not decide simply to go depart from this -"body with a false eccelesiological sense", for the MP it appears at most possible to us, after departing from dialogue with the WCC, to have observers present there (as our Church had, for example, on the Vatican catholic cathedral of 1962), but no more.
We consider insufficient to explore only a question about participating of ROC-MP dialogue with the WCC. It is necessary to write in detail questions about the participation of the ROC-MP in Conference of European Churches and other Ecumenical organizations (for example, the Ecumenical organization of the Baltic countries, etc.), to explore their statutes, regulations, positions, status in them vis-a-vis MP for the purpose of verifying whether there is contradiction to the Orthodox teaching about the Church.

Also we consider it mistaken, presently, to take real steps on rapprochement with MP "on their word" until witnessing an exit from the WCC by its next assembly in 2006. It is necessary at first to wait till this occurs in the aforesaid year, and then it will be possible to continue negotiations.

6. In conciliatory documents it is necessary to specify the impermissibility in the future of utterances of Orthodox hierarchs of the MP (such, for example, as the well known appearance of Patriarch Alexei II before the rabbis in New York), including use of terms and concepts, conflicting with the Holy Orthodox tradition, such as "sister-Church" in regard to Catholics, "Oriental Orthodox" in regard to monophysites, "great religion of Divine Revelation" in regard to Islam, etc. Every such utterance not must be, in the future, respected as the "private opinion" of one or another hierarch, but must be accompanied by brotherly exhortation from the side of First Hierarch of the Church or the Sobor of bishops (when the question is about the First Hierarch) until correction. If not, all of it can be fully appraised as the open teaching of heresy and falls under Canon 15 of the 2nd Council of Constantinople.

7. ROC-MP must halt the eucharistic communion with Local Orthodox Churches which continue membership in the WCC and CEC or officially recognize them. Also ROC-MP must cease communion with all official Local Churches in accordance with Canon 1 of Antioch (by reason of introduction of the western Latin paschalion by Finnish Orthodox Church and the common eucharistic communion with her on the part of the others).

8. For the above reasons, our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad can at the moment have no eucharistic communion with the official Local Orthodox Churches. Practice of the occasional celebration with clergy of the Serbian or Jerusalem Patriarchates must remain the private affair of those representatives of our clergy, which is assumed, but not must be proclaimed as the official position of all our Church.

9. It is necessary in every way to assert the eucharistic communion and spiritual connections with our brothers to us in Christ, the hierarchies of the Old Calendar Synod-in-Resistance in Greece and True Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria and Romania. The decision about the renewal of eucharistic communion with the ROC-MP must be concerted with these Churches.

In conclusion we call God's benediction on our dear congregation and prayer is desired to all our parishioners best wishes during Passion Week and spiritually gladly and saving to meet the Light of Christ this Pascha. "To her, Elect Lady, My God Jesus! Grace and Peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you. Amen."

Odessa, 07/20.04.05, Svt. George, Bishop of Mytylensk.

+ Agafangel, Bishop Tavrya and Odessa
Archimandrite John (Zynov'ev)
Prot. Valery Alekseev
Prot. Vladimir Fastovych
Ig. George (Kravchenko)
Ig. Parfeny (Grynyuk)
Hieromonk Arseny (Man'ko)
Hieromonk Andrian (Zamlynskyy)
Hieromonk Ilaryon (Dmytryev)
Hieromonk Nicholas (Zav'yalov)
P. Igor Yavorsky
P. Vasiliy Demchenko
P. Leonid Plyats
P. Dmitri Zynoviev
P. Maxim Vologdin
P. Alexander Martynenko
P. Alexander Petrenko
P. Sergy Kaloev
P. Valentine Bondar
P. Andrei Trachuk
P. Anatoly Koren'kov
Hierodeacon Philaret (Zakotey)
Deacon Vitaly Morozov
Deacon Vitaly Taranenko

(Translated by Vertograd)

American ROAC Clerics Visit Suzdal

2005-03-02T22:44:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd: Moscow - Suzdal)

The Dean of ROAC in North America and pastor of Holy Resurrection Church in Worcester (Massachusetts), Protopresbyter Victor Melehov, the rector of the Church of St John the Russian in Ipswich (Massachusetts) Archpriest Spyridon Schneider, and rector of St Basil of Kineshema in Colorado Springs (Colorado) Archpriest Dionysus MacGowan visited Russia February 19-24. From February 19-21, they held Divine services in Moscow's Dmitrov neighborhood, where one of the communities of Fr Victor Melehov was founded.

On February 21, the American priests came to Suzdal, where they discussed with ROAC First-Hierarch Metropolitan Valentine a number of organizational and spiritual questions. Next day they celebrated liturgy with Metropolitan Valentine in The Tsar-Constantine Cathedral , during which ROAC's first Argentinean priest Siluan Dignac was ordained. Metropolitan Valentine celebrated with seven priests today, including a newly received priest of the Tula diocese of ROAC. This is already the third priest received into ROAC from the Moscow Patriarchate in February of this year. In the evening of February 22, the guests returned to Moscow's Dmitrov quarter, and on February 24 they returned to the USA.

Athonite Monks Express Judgment about Canonical Position of Metropolitan Vitaly

2005-03-02T22:43:00.001-08:00

(Agios Agafangelos Esfigmenitis - Vertograd: Mt Athos)

The Athos Periodical of Zilotov, published by the True Orthodox Monastery of Esphigmenou, made a statement about the canonical position of Metropolitan Vitaly, first-hierarch of ROCOR (V). In the opinion of the publishers of the periodical, Metropolitan Vitaly remains the lawful first hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad.

Since truth was trampled upon, the statement argues, Metropolitan Vitaly had every right to take a complete "withdrawal from retirement". The basis for such is the rapprochement of a part of ROCOR which remained with Metropolitan Laurus with the the Moscow Patriarchate. Today's representatives of the MP and their predecessors are guilty, the periodical stated, of the death of millions of Russian orthodox martyrs, clerics and laymen.

Metropolitan Kirill Meets ROCOR (L) Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff

2005-03-02T22:43:00.000-08:00

(Communications Department MP External Church Relations - Vertograd: Moscow)

On February 24 in the division of External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, a meeting took place between Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, one of the most ecumenical hierarchs of the MP, and Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, Rector of Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles and secretary of ROCOR(L)'s Commission on negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate. In the encounter, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary of the MP's ECR Department for Inter-Orthodox Relations and the secretary of the commission of the MP on the dialogue with the Russian Church Abroad, was also present. Questions were discussed, connected with further activity of commissions. Besides that, in the course of conversation "the theme of spiritual values in the Orthodox Tradition in the presence of other faiths was touched upon".

Delegations of MP and ROCOR (L) to Meet in Paris

2005-03-02T22:41:00.001-08:00

A Delegation of MP will leave on March 1 to Paris, under the auspices of the fourth joint session of the Commission for Dialogue with ROCOR (L). At the meeting, the consideration of various problems will continue, originally brought up during the official visit to Russia of First-Hierarch Metropolitan Laurus of ROCOR (L) during May 2004.

"At the present meeting, questions will be again discussed connected with status of the Church Abroad as the self-governing part of the local Russian Orthodox Church and by the canonical conditions of restoring full communion", commented Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, secretary for Inter-Orthodox relations of the division of External Church Relations of the MP. Discussion, according to him, will consist of problems, connected "with the clergymen of the Church Abroad who were ordained in the Moscow Patriarchate or other local Orthodox Churches", and also questions "on the organizations of the Church Abroad located on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church". During the negotiations the theme of "Church and state" will also continue to be discussed.

DOCUMENT: Congratulatory Message of First Hierarch of ROCOR (L) To Patriarch Alexei II on the Occasion of His Namesday

2005-03-02T22:41:00.000-08:00

To His All-Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Alexei

Your All-Holiness, most Holy Vladika!

With a feeling of spiritual joy, I greet you on your namesday! May your labors in rendering of the health, spiritual revival and the renovation of our God-loving people be blessed. It is my prayerful desire for you to be granted great benefaction and heavenly aid in the accomplishment of your high service. May it serve the glory of God and the strengthening in the faith of Christ for all Russian orthodox people.

With brotherly love in the Lord,
+ METROPOLITAN LAURUS, FIRST HIERARCH OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD
12/25 February of 2005

(Translated from the Russian by Vertograd)

Ecumenical News: Patriarch Alexei Sends Congratulations with Inauguration of New Rector of Estonian Evangelical-Lutheran Church

2005-02-24T22:52:00.000-08:00

(MP External Relations - Portal-Credo.Ru - Vertograd: Tallinn)

In Tallinn, with the election into the episcopal dignity of Andreas Pyld, the new rector of the Estonian Evangelical - Lutheran church, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow sent his solemn greetings through the MP's Estonian Orthodox Church-Metropolitan Cornelius of Tallinn, who was represented by Archpriest Iuvenaly of Kaarm. Metropolitan Cornelius congratulated Andreas Pyld's election and proclaimed the text of Patriarch Alexei's congratulatory letter to the new bishop of the ELC in Estonia.

A "Fiery Sign" in the Chapel of Blessed Xenia of Petersburg During Her Feast

2005-02-24T22:50:00.000-08:00

(Portal-Credo.ru - Vertograd: St. Petersburg)

During the day of St Xenia of Petersburg memory, a candle in the east wall of the chapel nearest the tomb fell and destroyed many of the requests for prayer written on pieces of paper. There were an unusually high number of requests during that day, due to the feast. Flames engulfed a number of items between the wall and the candlestand. Pasteboard baskets, cellophane wrappers and more became cinders. Eyewitnesses said that the bonfire stood at two meters for five minutes, until someone managed to find a bucket of water.

The destruction of the notes created a feeling of alarm and pain in pilgrims. Many believed that the combustion of what amounted to hundreds of prayer requests was a sign that "Xenia got tired of the endless, vain requests for earthly goods and financial increases."

The fire ended a day pilgrimage to holy places in the life of St Xenia undertaken by a group of St Petersburg believers. They had brought with them for chapel blessing the newly painted icon of the Saint with a coin from the 18th century, calling to mind the wonderful rescue from the fire of the house Yevdokias Belyaeva: after meeting St.Xenis, the blessed one handed her a five-kopeck coin with the "tsar on the horse" saying: "take a five-kopeck coin, it will be extinguished".

True Orthodox News: In Suzdal, the First ROAC Priest for Argentina is Ordained

2005-02-24T22:49:00.000-08:00

On February 22, Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal and Vladimir ordained Siluan Dignac to the Holy Priesthood in the Tsar St Constantine Cathedral for the ROAC's mission in Argentina. Fr Siluan was the first cleric ordained by the Free Russian Church for South America.

Father Siluan (Silvio Ergasto) Dignac was born on April 7, 1975, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, into a military family. He learned his Orthodoxy in early childhood from his maternal grandmother, although he was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. From the age of 17, he began to study the writings of the Holy Fathers and began to attend a ROCOR parish in Buenos Aires from the age of 20. In 1999, he was introduced to ROCOR Bishop Alexander (Mileant) and helped Bishop Alexander develop his missionary website and seminary.

Fr Siluan and his wife were recieved into into the ROAC in March of 2004 by Archbishop Gregory of Denver and were given a blessing to start an Orthodox Mission in honor of the Vladimir Icon of the Mother of God. After Bishop Gregory departed into schism, the mission remained faithful to the Free Russian Orthodox Church.

Hieromonk Joins ROAC From MP in Saint Petersburg

2005-02-24T22:48:00.000-08:00

Hieromonk Daniel (Elkind), formerly of the Nizhniy-Novgorod Diocese of the MP, officially joined the Free Russian Orthodox Church on February 9 in Suzdal. His first liturgy as a True Orthodox cleric was held on February 13 in the Parish of St Elizabeth the New-Martyr, St Petersburg alongside Hieromonk Gregory (Lourie).

Hieromonk Daniel (in the world Michael Elkind) was born in 1969 in St Petersburg. In 1991, he was accepted into the St Nicholas Verkhotursky monastery in the Moscow Patriarchate's Ekaterinburg diocese. In 1992 he was tonsured and ordained a hierodeacon, and in 1994 was made a hieromonk. In 2003 he completed his work at the seminary in Nizhniy-Novgorod, after defending his seminal work on "Slavic students of St Paisus Velichkovsky".

True Orthodox News: Metropolitan Valentine Serves Divine Liturgy in Novaya Kupavna, Moscow Region, Where Rights of Free Russian Church are Threatened

2005-02-13T14:56:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd : Novaya Kupavna, Moscow Region)

The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, served Divine Liturgy on February 6, the feast of St Xenia of Petersburg and the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia at the St Xenia Temple in Novaya Kupavna (Moscow Region), in honor of the parish feast. Concelebrating with the First Hierarch of the ROAC from the Churches of the Moscow Region of the Suzdal Diocese of ROAC were Archpriest Michael Ardov, the rector the New Martyrs Parish, Priest Andrei Valevskiy, the rector of the St Xenia parish and Protodeacon Sergius Slonov of Suzdal.

After the liturgy, which was chanted by the Suzdal chorus, a communal meal took place during which First Hierarch of the ROAC talked with the parishioners.

Divine services took place in the temporary chapel made in the Church-house. The community in Novaya Kupavna has been involved in legal proceedings for many years, due to Moscow's Noginsk regional administration attempting to destroy the community. The building of the Temple was stopped for this reason, the walls of which are already built.

True Orthodox News: Archpriests From Russia and USA Travel to Switzerland for Divine Services

2005-02-13T14:54:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd : Geneva)

In the Free Russian Orthodox Parish of St George the Great Martyr in Kopp, not far from Geneva (Switzerland), Divine Services took place on Jan. 22 and 23. From Russia, the rector of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas Temple in Golovinsky cemetery in Moscow, Archpriest Michael Ardov, arrived to act as primary celebrant. Arriving to assist at services was Hegumen Andrei (Maklakov) of St Nicholas Church in New York.

On January 22, All-Night Vigil was served, with Divine Liturgy on January 23. On the same day, on with the blessing of Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal, the great blessing of water was performed, since the Theophany holiday had not yet ended.

All the local parishioners and guests confessed and partook of the communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ.

World Orthodox News: Question About Status of Church Property in Palestine Does Not Bear Threat to Negotiations with ROCOR(L), According To MP

2005-02-13T14:51:00.000-08:00

(Interfax - ITAR-TASS - Vertograd : Moscow)

The official representative of MP's Department of External Relations, Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, stated in an interview with Interfax that the proceedings concerning the legal status of properties in the Holy Land does not bear a threat to the
negotiations process with ROCOR (L). Since these areas were given to the MP in 1997 and 2000, as the negotiations began, no one assumed that "their present status would be newly brought into question, and that their legal registration would cause manifestation of worry".

In the opinion of Fr. Nikolai Balashov, "it is important to forego the old property disputes, and to proceed from the acknowledgement of the present reality, focusing from the time of when the negotiations began".

Fr. Nikolai Balashov gave the interview for Interfax amidst protests expressed by the press- service of ROCOR (L) against the legal registration of property of ROCOR in the holy Land, seized in 1997 and 2000. The Moscow Patriarchate was able to gain control of the properties with the military assistance of the Palestinian authority.

Ecumenical News: Patriarch of World Orthodoxy Opens Ecumenical Chapel

2005-02-13T14:49:00.000-08:00

(SANA - Vertograd: Damascus)

Patriarch Ignatios IV Hazim of Antioch and All the East of the Greek Orthodox and Patriarch Gregarious III Laham of Antioch and All the East of the Greek-Catholics on the evening of February 4 headed a special service celebration on the occasion of concecration of Saints Peter and Paul Joint Church in Dummar, on the outskirts of Damascus.

"This event is the start point towards uniting the Antiochian Church within the framework of the comprehensive national unity in Syria," Patriarch Laham said in his sermon. For his part, Patriarch Ignatios IV Hazim underlined that the consecration of a joint church is an exceptional event that plays an important role in enhancing national unity.

Ecumenical News: Patriarch Offers "Fraternal Prayer" for Pope's Health

2005-02-13T14:46:00.000-08:00

(Official Web-Site of MP - Zenit - Vertograd : Moscow)

According to the Roman Catholic news service Zenit.org, Patriarch Alexei of Moscow offered his "fraternal prayer" for Pope John Paul II. Below is the text of the telegram to Pope John Paul II from Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow, which is available at the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate:

Your Holiness!

Please accept, your Holiness, the expression of our brotherly support in prayer in connection with the illness that has befallen you. May the most merciful God grant you healing and strengthen your forces in carrying the high office of the First Hierarch of the Roman Catholic Church, for the benefit of your flock and for the benefit of joint Christian service to peace and justice.

With Love in the Lord,
Patriarch Alexei of Moscow and All Russia
http://www.mospat.ru/text/news/id/8550.html

World Orthodox News: On the Eve of the Session of the Hierarchical Synod of the ROCOR (L), Metropolitan Kyrill (Gundyaev) Gives Sergianist Statement

2005-02-07T02:04:00.000-08:00

(RIA-Novosti--Vertograd: Moscow)

"We recognize that the model of church-state relations did not correspond to tradition. But we do not condemn those who applied this model, because there was no other way of preserving the Church", stated the chairman of the MP's Committe on External Relations, Metropolitan Kyrill (Gundyaev) on January 24, during International Christmas readings in Moscow, the day before the beginning of the Synod meeting of ROCOR (L).

According to metropolitan Kyrill, what the representatives of the Church Abroad call "Sergianism" was in reality the policy of survival: "the Church behaved in the way which was the only possbile way at that time. Another way was into the catacombs, and there could be no catacombs in the Soviet territories". This statement of Metropolitan Kyrill can show his foreign colleagues that union will necessarily have to rise above "some contradictions". Furthermore, this statement of the head of the division of External Church Relations also made clear what precisely the boundaries of "civil disobedience" are for the Moscow Patriarchate: in dire circumstances, the "the only possible way" is the way of gratifying the civil authority.

DOCUMENT: "We Cannot Remain Silent After Such Statements— This Will Turn Our Flock Against the Ongoing Talks"

2005-02-07T02:00:00.000-08:00

DOCUMENT
"We Cannot Remain Silent After Such Statements— This Will Turn Our Flock Against the Ongoing Talks."
Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, President of the Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on Discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, Reacts to the Statement Made by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy During a Meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas

As reported by the official websites in Russia, while on a trip to Russia on Monday, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas visited Danilov Monastery in Moscow, where he met with Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia. Over the course of their conversation, the Patriarch expressed gratitude to the leadership of the Palestinian Autonomy for transferring to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission of the Moscow Patriarchate church property in Hebron and Jericho, which had been preserved and protected for many years by the Russian Church Abroad. In 1997, representatives of the Palestinian Authority forcibly ejected monks and nuns belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia from Holy Trinity Monastery in Hebron (who had been collecting fruits there that day) and turned it over to the Moscow Patriarchate. In January 2000, on the day of St Seraphim of Sarov, soon after the celebration of the 2000th year of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem, monastics (mainly those who had been ejected from Hebron in 1997) were arrested by Palestinian forces, again with the use of physical force, at the premises of the Russian Church Abroad in Jericho, which was then turned over to the Moscow Patriarchate. "I presume that the time has come when it is legally necessary to secure this property in the name of the Mission (of the ROC/MP—ed.)," stated Patriarch Alexy.

The members of the Committee of the discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate had expected that the Moscow Patriarchate, as a symbol of peacemaking, would return at least one of the properties seized unlawfully in the Holy Land, which would be a noble gesture on the part of the ROC/MP and would heal the most recent wound on the Body of the Russian Church. For this reason, the statement made by the Moscow Patriarchate elicited a protest on the part of the President of the Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The request made by the Moscow Patriarchate is even more stunning since, as far as it is known, the ROC/MP has not yet succeeded in formalizing the legal ownership of church property either in Russia or in Israel or in lands controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

"I am very disappointed," stated Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany to Kommersant correspondent Pavel Korobov, "For at the beginning of the process a declaration was made that we must refrain from any actions and statements that could insult the other side. And this is precisely such an action. We cannot remain silent to such a statement—this will turn our entire flock against the talks," added Archbishop Mark. "But if this is a misunderstanding, a corresponding statement should be issued."

"Very recently," continued Archbishop Mark, "the Moscow Patriarchate expressed its opinion that one must re-ordain all our priests in Russia. But not one of our bishops would agree to this. Sometimes I ask myself, maybe this is someone's attempt to sabotage the process of negotiations."

In a recent interview given to NG-Religiya, Archbishop Mark noted: "There are such fears [within the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—ed.] regarding property. The President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, during a meeting with us in May of this year, in the presence of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II and of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, unequivocally spoke out on this topic, stressing that neither the Russian Government nor the ROC/MP will make any claims on the property of the Church Abroad. Still, many are not convinced! It is necessary that steps be taken to ensure such trust."

Press Service of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/news05/markprotest.html

# PORTAL-CREDO.RU: Archbishop Mark of Berlin is re-exposed to the "true essence" of the Moscow Patriarchate

2005-02-07T01:58:00.000-08:00

PRESS-REVIEW

That circumstances would hinder the process of "reunification" between the ROCOR (L) and the Moscow Patriarchate has already been noted long ago-- it was clear even in the days of the "historic visit" to Russia of the official "Diaspora" delegation headed by Metropolitan Lavr during May of last year. Usually this was explained by the insurmountability of a number of ecclesiastical-historical and canonical problems, discussed at the joint sessions of the commissions of the two churches for "reunification". The first problem is that of ecumenism - in fact, formal relations between the ROC-MP did not change, and the Moscow Patriarch remains an important member of the World Council of Churches and participates in the prayers with the heterodox. But the ROCOR anathematized ecumenism in 1983. Second would be "Sergianism": now, in the era of Putin's patriotic renaissance, the ROC-MP is completely disinclined to reject the church policy of the "Stalinist" Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), from which it had already outright refused in the beginning of the 1990's. Finally, there is the problem of church property abroad, which both sides actively refused to address, asserting that there was almost no problem. And here, as a result, it proves to be the main stumbling-block.

After 2001, when the First-Hierarch of the ROCOR and the conservative clergy departed from it, the enthusiastic moods in the church, which was now the ROCOR (L), only increased-- the recent and formerly accursed MP was shown to be the "Mother Church", the "sole church of the Russian people", and the "church of the new-martyrs", and Patriarch Alexei II, still referred to in the foreign press by such names as "Agent Drozdov" and "heretic" suddenly became "His Holiness".

Like the series of blanket condemnations, this new enthusiasm was scattered suddenly and for trifling reasons. Even some fifty-six days ago at the Hierarchical Synod meeting in New York, during which the permission of His Holiness was sought to publish separate, but already long ago matched and combed, documents which were accepted by the commisions for "reunification", the echoes of new prophecies were sounded in the halls of the synodal house about union occurring at the beginning of 2006. And here suddenly on January 31, we find a response to the "protocol" issued by Patriarch Alexei II during his meeting with new Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas from no less than the main ideologist of "reunification" on the side of ROCOR (L)-- Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany.

The ecclesio-politcal course of this individual changed radically several times - and the hostage of these fluctuations was the entire Church Abroad, suffering from a sharp scarcity of intellectuals in the episcopal dignity. With the Archbishop's seal of approval they are characteristically, categorically confident in the rightness of their course, demonstrating perfect unwillingness to listen to their opponents and enter into any dialogue with them. The Archbishop announces his study ex cathedra as the established position, not as some pitiful fundamentalist, especially not from unwashed Russia. The Archbishop's seal was originally stamped on the "Russian project", and spoke in favor of maximum development of "parallel" structures in Russia. Then, faulting the fastidiousness of the homo sovieticus, the inaccuracy of this course was proclaimed, since contemporary Russian people were not ready for civilized church life. Finally, at the end of the 90's, a course was undertaken to unite with the MP, the diocese of which in Germany began to pass to the ROCOR. Changes in course were never stamped with an Archbishop's seal of repentance -- only changes in "historical circumstances" were noted. Only during November of 2003 did the Archbishop privately obtain forgiveness from Patriarch Alexei II, and not for himself, but for all the "insulting statements" made by representatives of ROCOR towards the MP.

Most likely, this change of course in this sequence, which had the Archbishop's seal of approval on the 31st of January, will also be attributed to a change in the circumstances. Indeed, "system errors", which translate to the German hierarch into numerous opponents from both within and without the ROCOR (L), could not be allowed. Thus, the MP goes from being "Sergianist" to the "Mother Church" and now back to "persecutor and tormentor", and Archbishop Mark remains solid as a rock.

Thus, on January 31, 2005, in the presence of Mahmoud Abbas, the ROC-MP is again buried in "Sergianism". It asked the Palestinian leader to legally secure the monasteries in the Holy Land as Patriarchal property, which was recently taken away from ROCOR scandalously and violently. Technically, the ROC-MP always considered this property as its own, which is why we refer to the statement of the Patriarch as a "protocol". But indeed, Archbishop Mark did not know, or he forgot, or he forced himself to forget the "true essence" of the Moscow Patriarchate. The luster of the cupolas, the countless assemblies of clergy and the crowds of laity, the sweet sounds of the singing of church choirs and the personal charm of His Holiness distracted his attention from the tears of the Sisters in Jericho. But Vladika was warned - all the splendor of the "spiritually revived" Russia will fall to another's feet.

Attempting to save face, Archbishop Mark explains that while the Church Abroad is ready to swallow the forced removal of its property here in the Holy Land, that allegedly the flock will not understand. The Masonic theories of the "rights of man" eclipsed the reason even of those in the West, who sincerely believed that the luster of cupolas guaranteed the truth of the ROC-MP. But the ROC-MP explains that on its side, there is no meaning to these Masonic theories - if the church is one, then the owner of property is one. A property question here has become, which once had archbishop's stamp as no hindrance to union (indeed it it actually threatened the loss of last arrivals in Germany), the stumbling block in this "historical process".

Our portal forecast-- a year ago-- such a dispute and even a fiasco surrounding such a solemn "process of unification". This forecast was not based, however, on the ill wishes and obvious interception of the initiative by metropolitan Kyrill (Gundyaev). Indeed, when Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov) ventured into the process - the conservative antipode of the MP's Committee on External Relations - President Putin was inclined to lend his hand to the union. Undermining the process of union, Metropolitan Kyrill sharply weakens the position of Fr. Tikhon and deprives him of the President's confidence, since the latter- who acted on the initiative of Fr. Tikhon- now finds himself in a stupid position. At the same time, he robs of the foreign hierarches of the authority which they held in conservative church circles. As for the property, it will nevertheless gradually pass into the hands of the ROC-MP, regardless of the twists and turns taken by the "wise course" of the Archbishop's seal of approval.

Alexander Soldatov

ROCOR News. Ecclesiastical Mismanagment Causes Two More Priestly Departures from the ROCOR

2005-01-23T14:33:00.000-08:00

(Church Herald - Portal-credo.ru - Vertograd: Omsk)

Two priests went under the omophor of Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia, of ROCOR ("Lazarite" branch), having left the Ishim Diocese of ROCOR (L)--Priests Constantine Kaunov and Victor Babitsyn. As stated in their open letter to ROCOR Bishop Evtikhii (Kurochkin), the reason for their withdrawal was the "retreat from the Holy Martyric path of the ROCOR (L) from confession of True Orthodoxy and the adoption of a course of union with the Sergio-ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate".

Fr Constantine Kaunov serves in a house-church in Novouralsk, with a sizable following of Old Ritualists. Fr Constantine himself regards the old rites with favor. Originally Fr. Constantine was part of the Volgograd Diocese of the MP, but for health reasons was allowed to be transferred back to his home in the Urals. Two years ago Fr. Constantine joined the ROCOR.

Fr. Constantine openly spoke against the new union of ROCOR (L) with the Moscow Patriarchate. As a result, after the establishment of contacts between MP Bishop Vikentii of Ekaterinburg and ROCOR's Bishop Evthikhii, the former published a Ukaz "suspending" Fr. Constantine. Referring to this edict, Bishop Evtikhii at the last diocesan meeting of the Ishim Diocese of the ROCOR (L) reported to the anti-union priest that he was forbidden from serving at the altar since he "disobeyed the prohibition of Archbishop Vikentii of Ekaterinburg".

The second priest--Fr. Victor Babitsyn--served in the Moscow Patriarchate, in the city of Pervouralsk. After a long period of reflection he went under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR (L) in March of 2004 through Bishop Evtikhii. However, not long after, ROCOR (L)'s vicar Bishop of Stuttgart, Bishop Agapit (Gorachek), arrived in Ishim with an order not to take in clergy from the MP. Bishop Evtikhii carried out this order, explaining on paper to Fr. Victor that he, "by mutual agreement with Archbishop Vikentii, could not be accepted (into ROCOR) without the matter first being tried by the MP."

World Orthodox News. Court Hearings for Georgian Cyprianite Priest Come to a Close

2005-01-23T14:30:00.000-08:00

(Forum 18 - Portal-Credo.ru - Vertograd: Tbilisi)

On January 11, the prosecutor asked a Tbilisi District Court judge to give Protopresbyter Vasili Mkalavishvili, the Georgian head of the Old Calendar "Synod of Resistance" in Greece, a seven-year sentence and his closest associate, Perer Ivanidze, a six-year sentence, and a third associate a two-year sentence. The prosecution asked that the rest given a three-year suspended sentence. When hearings resumed on January 13, the defendants' lawyers demanded that they all be found not guilty. It remains unclear when the verdicts on Mkalavishvili and his associates will be announced to the public.

Mkalavishvili, Ivanidze and five others were among those seized at their Old Calendarist Orthodox church in the Tbilisi suburb of Gldani after a violent police raid on March 12, 2004. More then 100 policemen and Georgian special forces stormed the Church, where Fr. Vasili was barricaded with his flock.

Their arrest was the result of years of hate crimes inflicted upon religious minorities with impunity, which were made with virtually no attempt to conceal or deny such behavior - indeed, Mkalavishvili proudly distributed video footage of his followers attacking religious minorities, beating believers and burning religious literature. Religious minorities repeatedly demanded his arrest and prosecution, but the authorities were unwilling to do so.

The court case eventually began at Tbilisi's Vake-Saburtalo district court in August 2004. Mkalavishvili and Ivanidze have been charged under Article 155, which punishes violent obstruction of others' right to conduct religious worship, and Article 187 (2), which punishes arson, for their roles in the years of attacks. Accusations against the pair under Article 225, which punishes organizing violent mass disorder, were dropped. The other five defendants face charges only for resisting arrest.

Father Vasili Mkalavishvili is under the direction of Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsumbas) of Oropos and Fili, unique among Old Calendarists for confessing an ecclesiology of "sick" and "healthy" parts of a "United Orthodox Church". According to Metropolitan Cyprian's theology, the first group, or the "healthy part", are those within his Resistance Synod or of Synods of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, and in the second group fall those Orthodox which are either New Calendar or openly participate in the Ecumenical Movement.

ROCOR (L) NEWS. Bishop Michael (Donskoff) Holds Joint Prayer Service with Metropolitan of Moscow Patriarchate

2005-01-19T13:58:00.000-08:00

(Vertograd: St. Petersburg)

Joint public prayers were held by Metropolitan Vladimir (Kotlerov) of the Moscow Patriarchate and Bishop Michael (Donskoff) of Boston, the Vicar of the Eastern- American Diocese of ROCOR (L) before the holy relics of the New Martyr and Grand Duchess Elizabeth and Nun Barbara, which were brought to the City-on-the-Neva by Bishop Michael on January 16. The sharing and common veneration of the relics of the Holy-New-Martyrs in the region of Russia and CIS member-states is the first joint program between the MP and the ROCOR (L), blessed by their first-hierarchs as a "step towards the union of the two churches".

MP-Bishop Vladimir, the Metropolitan of St Petersburg and Ladoga, is noted for his ecumenical and modernist views, which he has repeatedly and openly expressed. For his ecumenical activity he was awarded by Catholics in Poland with a medal and monetary compensation, known as the "Holy Brother Albert's award", in February, 2000. During the award ceremony, which took place remotely through the Polish Consulate in Petersburg, the Consul General of the Republic of Poland, Yezhe Skotarik, stated that "Poland's Council on Ecumenism adopted the decision about the presentation of a medal and a the award of the Holy Brother Albert to Metropolitan Vladimir for ecumenical activity and for efforts in his work for Christian unity." At the moment of the awards presentation, the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate sang "axios" ("worthy!") to their Bishop. In his reply, Metropolitan Vladimir thanked those being present for the award for what he considered a "modest contribution to the cause of Christian unity".

The previous award of St Albert was was bestowed an another Bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate - Metropolitan Kyrill (Gundayev) of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, with whom Bishop Michael of ROCOR (L) will have the opportunity to pray during the transfer of the holy relics to Moscow this trip.