|
The Statement of
the Synod of Bishops
of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the
Russian Orthodox People
The leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate has now officially
declared that it views the property of the Russian Church
Outside of Russia as belonging to itself, for only it, and
no other, is the “sole legal heir to the property of
the pre-Revolutionary Church,” which, consequently, “is
being held by the schismatics abroad illegally,” and
that such a decision “is accepted by the Orthodox believing
people of Russia with joy and profound gratitude.”
This statement compels us, the hierarchs abroad, to address
the Russian Orthodox people directly. It is essential that
we clarify the essential question which has emerged over the
last decade: the question of succession with regard to the
Russian Orthodox Church and historical Russia.
I. On the eve of the fall of the Communist regime it seem
ed possible that the
previous cause of the ecclesiastical division, the atheistic
government, was already falling away, and that the rest of
our problems would be resolved in fraternal dialogue. The
Council of Bishops repeatedly referred to this idea in its
epistles, and in actual fact strove to open paths to this
fellowship. In this, however, great difficulties were encountered,
and later, as far as we are able to judge, due to the active
interference of the authorities in Russia early in 1997, our
attempts at clarification were broken off (the seizure of
the monastery in Hebron).
Difficulties manifested themselves, firstly, in a totally
different attitude toward questions essential to the Church,
and our differences in this regard have not been resolved
to the present day.
1) The question of the sainthood of the new martyrs and the
Tsar-Martyr, the anointed of God, who were slain by the atheistic
authorities. From our point of view, they fulfilled the principal
mission of the Church of Russia in the 20th century.
2) The policy of collaboration with the atheistic authorities
begun by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) against that
part of the Church “disloyal” to the Communists
overlords, which brought about the destruction of the former.
From our point of view, to defend this policy is to demean
the struggle of the New Martyrs.
3) The ecumenical activity of the Orthodox in the World Council
of Churches. From our point of view, this crosses the boundaries
set by the holy canons and the Tradition of the holy fathers,
infringing upon the very truth of Orthodoxy.
4) Relations toward the post-Communist leadership of the Russian
Federation. From our point of view, they are introducing a
non-Christian policy designed to break down the Russian people
and destroy Russia. And this false spirit is in no way offset
by the gilding of domes and the restoration of church buildings
in which these very leaders are praised.
Attempts at “dialogue” on these differences on various
levels did not lead to the desired results. We acknowledge
that in this certain of our representatives are partly to
blame, for in their haste to make the Truth clear they insufficiently
understood the complex conditions of the turmoil in Russia.
In the tumultuous sea of the last decade in Russia it was
incredibly difficult to make our Russian brethren hear the
Truth of the Russian Church by which we live, in unbroken
succession, and without the intrusion of malicious powers
into our ecclesiastical life. We weremistaken in our response
to the situation in Russia and in our search for reliable
allies, being somewhat lacking in patience and love for those
opposed to us, which soon even became viewed as arrogance
in the eyes of the Russian people. Yet what we wished for
was something quite different.
II. Over all the preceding decades, we had preserved spiritual
fellowship with those who did not submit to militant atheism,
preserving Orthodoxy; and our hearts were open to them, in
whatever part of the Church of Russia they were to be found.
This fellowship was in part also in accordance with the canons
of the Church, so that when times of greater liberty came,
these ties, this presence in Russia, were also revealed. This
happened because there was preserved, and continued secretly
to live, that part of the Church of Russia which did not accept
the "Declaration of Loyalty" (1927), imposed by
the militant atheists, wherewith Metropolitan Sergius tried
to bind both the conscience of all Orthodox people in Russia
as well as our conscience (demanding that each clergyman abroad
personally sign an oath of "loyalty to the Soviet authorities").
As the years passed, the word "schism" began to
be applied to us and to others who were viewed as "disloyal;”
this term continues to distort the ecclesial crux of the question
to this day. We have never accepted this term, and we do not
wish to apply it to others. This question is extremely painful,
and must, from our point of view, be resolved in some other
way.
As early as 1923, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia resolved:
"Having as our immediate objective the nurturing of the
Russian Orthodox flock abroad, the Council of Bishops, the
Synod, the hierarchs and priests, within the limitations of
their powers, must show all possible coöperation in meeting
various spiritual needs when asked to do so by the ecclesiastical
organizations which remain in Russia, or by individual Christians."
In particular, it was stipulated: "Representatives of
the dioceses located outside the boundaries of Russia, acting
together, express the voice of the free Russian Church, abroad;
but no individual person, nor even the Council of the bishops
of these dioceses, represents itself as an authority which
has the rights which the whole Church of Russia possesses
in all its fullness, in the person of its lawful hierarchy."
The concept of the whole Church of Russia and a lawful hierarchy,
according to canon law, does not exclude the diaspora, but
naturally embraces the totality of the Church of Russia in
the light of the Pan-Russia Council of 1917-1918. It is impossible
to restore this integrity by a process of rejection and exclusion
which have their origin with the militant atheists, who tried
to set the Orthodox people against one another, and for this
purpose concocted the "Living Church" and other
obstacles. We consider that the interpretation of historical
and ecclesiastical judgment must be a joint task over which
the Russian people, all of us, must labor with great patience,
first of all with love for the Truth. Otherwise, there is
the danger that we will fail to disentangle ourselves from
the snares, or may fall into them again.
We reject the word "schism," not only as one which
distorts the crux of the problem, but also as a lie against
the whole Church of Russia concocted by the enemies of Christ
during the most terrible period of persecutions. We have never
accepted this lie concerning the Church, just as we have not
accepted the lie concerning the Church contained in the "Declaration,"
in which, to please the regime of that time, patristic doctrine
and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures were trampled
underfoot. For this reason, our fathers declared in 1927:
"The portion of the Church of Russia abroad considers
itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the great
Church of Russia. It does not separate itself from its Mother
Church,and does not consider itself autocephalous. As before,
it considers its head to be the patriarchal locum tenens Metropolitan
Peter of Krutitsa, and commemorates him [as such] during the
divine services." At that time, we discovered that the
lawful first hierarch of the Church of Russia had rebuked
his deputy, Metropolitan Sergius, from exile, for "exceeding
his authority," and commanded him to "return"
to the correct ecclesiastical path; but he was not obeyed.
In fact, even while Metropolitan Peter was alive, Metropolitan
Sergius usurped, first his diocese (which, according to the
canons, is strictly forbidden), and later his very position
as locum tenens. These actions constituted not only a personal
catastrophe, but also a universal catastrophe for our Church.
We never left the Church, even though there have been those
who began to separate and drive us out with the word "schism"
from those most terrible of days even to the present‹failing
to grasp the main point, and still not being aware of it.
It is impossible to resolve contemporary ecclesiastical questions
by simply usurping the title "sole lawful ecclesiastical
leadership," trampling the tragic truth of the Church
in Russia underfoot.
Our readiness, even over the last decades, to help the believing
people in Russia (as far as our weak powers permitted) in
various ways (literature, bearing witness concerning the persecution
of the Church, protests) has not changed. It has led to our
receiving believers under our omophorion, and, for various
reasons, a small number of clergymen in addition to those
who already had had a secret existence for some time. In addition
to the above-mentioned reasons, others were added which entailed
at the time intolerable violations of the canons of the Church,
and these were still uncorrected in 1989-1991. Then a tempest
arose over the "opening" of parishes of the Church
Abroad in Russia. We did not try actively to open parishes
and foist ourselves on them from abroad, but merely "accepted"
those Russian people who had learned more about the history
of the Church and its life and yearned for ecclesial communion
with us, despite the barriers of a propaganda inherited from
past times. This little portion, for which our shortcomings
did not overshadow the Truth and which, for this reason, decided
to unite themselves in Russia to our prayers, has been subjected
to persecutions, while our Church is slandered in all the
official church publications.
Yet the same leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, which
on the new stage of gradual liberation has exacerbated the
situation by its own interpretation of events and has so bitterly
fought against the "parallel structure," has itself,
since the end of World War II, continuing to carry out the
demands of the authorities then in power, created its own
structures where its was only possible in the diaspora, and
in Israel, in 1948, totally drove away our monastics when
establishing itself. At that time this was, for us, although
grievous, at least understandable‹we saw the Church's
lack of freedom and the enslavement of officially sanctioned
ecclesiastical structures in Russia, which were fettered by
the authorities and chained to the authorities.
These latter years have witnessed a new wave of forcible seizures
by the Moscow Patriarchate of churches and monasteries from
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in various countries, or
attempts to seize them, with the help of the secular authorities
(foreign and Russian), wherever such is possible, in Italy,
Israel, Germany, Denmark, Canada. Now it is finally confirmed,
even by the mouth of the primate of the Moscow Patriarchate,
Alexis II, and representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate's
Department of External Affairs, that they have no desire for
unification with us on the proposed position of Truth. They
prefer to resolve the indicated points of disagreement and
the question of the history of the Church of Russia simply
by eliminating the Church Abroad, by crushing it. In other
words, the present leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate prefers
to continue the policies of Metropolitan Sergius‹only
in a new form, at a new level.
III. Thus, when we pose the question of succession, we have
in mind not only property title to the churches abroad. Regarding
this question, it is well known that the Soviet regime refused
them, as it did "ecclesial obscurantism" in general,
when in the 1930s it announced its "five-year plan for
atheism." It is precisely the Russian emigration which
was able to save these churches from confiscation by foreign
states and from destruction, carefully restoring them with
its own means as Russia Abroad, which is open
with all its heart both to the Russian past (tsarist Russia)
and a free Russia of the future. Therefore, this is in actuality
our joint heritage, the heritage of the whole Russian people,
and without fail it will be such as a result of the restoration
of the one Church of Russia, which stands in the Truth. However,
to our distress, the past decade has shown that the leaders
of the Moscow Patriarchate are avoiding true union, are not
ready for it, for this would mean that they would have to
give an honest account to the people and listen to its voice.
This is also the reason why they are violently seizing churches
which have not been preserved by their efforts, taking no
account of the outlay of expenses, even though in Russia itself
thousands of desolate churches need to be saved.
It is obvious that the principal objective of this is the
smothering of our Church, and not the nurturing of the flock
abroad, for here they do not in the least fear the terrible
scandalizing of that flock. Who among the emigrants will enter
those churches which have been wrested away by violence and
wickedness? One cannot fail to see that they are attempting
to eliminate us as a vexing and uncorruptible witness to the
20th century history of Russia.
The main succession which we preserve and which our "opponents"
in the Moscow Patriarchate are trying to uproot in our person,
is historical and spiritual. After the militantly atheist
Revolution, it was our Russian Church Abroad which became
the linch-pin of that small portion of the Russian nation
which did not recognize the Revolution and chose as its path
the preservation of loyalty to our Orthodox state. This stubborn
stand for the Truth, despite its apparent "unreality,"
pressure from the Bolsheviks, from pro-Soviet hierarchs, and
the surrounding democratic world, was realized among us as
a "struggle for Russianism in the midst of universal
apostasy,"in the hope that for this God would have mercy
on Russia and give our people a last chance to restore its
historic aspect. This was the primary purpose of the Russian
diaspora. It is for this that we have been praying in our
churches for eighty years: "For the suffering land of
Russia" and "That He may deliver its people from
the bitter tyranny of the atheist authorities."
This refers also to the post-Communist regime of the Russian
Federation, which considers itself the successor not so much
of historical Russia (this is declared only rarely, and in
words only) as the successor of the Bolshevik regime. The
entire legal system of the Russian Federation is founded on
the Soviet legal system, and not on the pre-Revolutionary
laws*. *(In particular, ownership of church buildings, as
before, is vested in the government of the Russian Federation,
not in the Church. This means that the government Is
able, whenever it wishes, to deprive the Church of any given
piece of property. We cannot forget that in gratitude for
its support in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948,
the latter gave to the USSR all the property of the Church
Abroad located on territory controlled by the new state. Only
a small portion of that property was transferred to the Moscow
Patriarchate; the greater part was later sold back by the
Soviet government to Israel at a purely nominal cost, in exchange,
in fact, for oranges.) The present democratically-elected
officials in Russia have preserved the majority of Bolshevism’s
atheistic symbols (the five-pointed star, etc.), monuments,
street- and city-names, ignoring the people’s original
intent: that the Communist heritage be overturned, that the
national tragedy of Russia in the 20th century be reassessed,
that there be repentance. At the same time, a new, anti-Christian
ideology has taken root in the Russian land. And so as to
weaken the people_s opposition to this, an intentional, conscious,
calculated demoralization of the people themselves is being
waged by cutting them off from their true, historic and spiritual
roots.
All of this is going on with the permission, consent and even
blessing of the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, which,
in order to preserve its own power structure, is prepared
to collaborate with any regime whatsoever, and to participate
actively in ecumenism, not only with non-Orthodox Christians,
but even with non-Christian political powers. “By our
joint efforts we will build a new, democratic society,”declared
the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexis II, in 1991, in
an address made to rabbis in New York, where he preached peace
for all “in an atmosphere of friendship, creative coöperation
and the brotherhood of the children of the One God, the Father
of all, the God of your fathers and ours.” How a similar
irenical activity answers to our fate is evident in the fact
that not long ago, while in Israel for the feast of the Nativity
of Christ, the primate of the Moscow Patriarchate performed
three morally incompatible activities: he prayed to the God
we have in common, Christ the incarnate Son of God, then reached
an agreement with the Moslems concerning the seizure of one
of our monasteries, and finally praised the destroyer Yeltsin
for “laboring for the good of Russia”and for his
“efforts in restoring the morality of our people.”
IV. We are convinced that the intensifying persecution against
the Russian Church Outside of Russia throughout the world
is one of the steps being taken toward the establishment of
a new world order. Furthermore, peoples deprived of their
own spiritual and cultural origins and Christian principles
are being perverted and undermined. Anti-Christian powers
are achieving their objectives by employing various methods,
among which is the inciting of certain nations and confessions
against others, and often of a certain part of a nation against
another, always encouraging within the local Orthodox Churches
those groups which are deemed useful at a given moment, and
denigrating those who oppose them. Is this not what is taking
place right now in the midst of Russian Orthodoxy? Is it not
obvious that there are powers which are striving to reduce
the Church of Russia to an ideological instrument,both the
authorities of the Russian Confederation and the “mighty
of this world” who stand behind them, for the control
of the Russian people? How can we fail to remember the image
of the harlot church seated upon the beast, which is described
in the Book of Revelation? And if the Book of Revelation tells
us: “Power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues,
and nations. And all who dwell upon the earth shall worship
him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have
an ear, let him hear” (Rev. 13:7-9), then it would seem
that over the past decade it has been entirely
possible to discuss and clarify in a “dialogue”
in what way one ought to understand, following a true, patristic
interpretation of the Sacred Scripture (which every consecrated
bishop is obligated by oath to keep holy), that “there
is no power but of God” (Rom. 13: 1-5). By this it may
be possible to set aright the perversion of the Orthodox Faith,
terrible in its consequences, which is to be found in documents
being published in the name of the Moscow Patriarchate as
in the name of the Church of Russia itself. Encroachment upon
the sense of Holy Tradition hinders spiritual healing. Our
appeal continues to be ignored; the Truth of the Church is
not being proclaimed; false teaching is not being condemned.
We know that a significant part of the people and clergy in
Russia are aware of the danger of the situation, which is
being manifested in many different forms. Still, the neo-Renovationists,
the ecumenists, and their opponents within the “right-leaning”
circles of the Moscow Patriarchate, who call themselves “true
catacomb Christians” despite all their irreconcilable
differences, not to mention the very leadership of the Moscow
Patriarchate, are united in spreading the selfsame slander
against our Church.
We know that our being situated outside Russia can seem “unpatriotic”
to some, as is proclaimed in the publications of the Moscow
Patriarchate. Yet those who attack us for this should read
St. Athanasius the Great’s “Apology for My Flight,”
and the canons of St. Peter of Alexandria, to avoid unchurchly,
secular reasoning and to understand how the Holy Church has
actually treated similar questions.
We see in this fate of part of the Russian people, sent into
the West by the Providence of God, a call to understand the
universal scale of the impending apocalyptic period. We do
not place our hope in foreign authorities when we appeal to
them, pointing out the principles of justice (as the holy
Apostle Paul once appealed to his Roman citizenship so as
to avoid violence united with iniquity) when we demand the
cessation of the iniquity inflicted upon the “little
flock” of Christ, our little Church.
Justice is appealed to, as we avail ourselves of a traffic
light on a road, so as to insure elementary order for all,
among whom one may also consider the emigrés who once
saved themselves from annihilation.
We place our trust in the One Holy Trinity, Whom we confess,
and on the wisdom of our people, who for a thousand years
have confessed the unity of the Trinity amid all the vicissitudes
of history. We hope that, taught by its new bitter experience,
it will have learned a lesson from the 20th century through
which it has just lived. The fate of Russia is in the hands
of God and the hands of the Russian people, if they desire
to remain the people of God.
We, descendants of the various generations of emigrés,
who find ourselves exiles in a foreign land by dint of the
bitter dregs which our people drained in the beginning, as
well as many of the other peoples of the world (whose children
have since come to us for the salvation of Christ), hope to
hold out until that day when, through the supplications of
our holy New Martyrs, Russia will be moved by prayer to carry
out its final mission: to bear witness before the world concerning
the Truth of Orthodoxy and the Orthodox form of government.
As far as our scant powers permit, we will always bear witness
to this for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. Our
goal, however modest, is not to allow anyone to drown this
Truth in the ocean of impending apostasy. Forgive us, compatriots
who are dear to us in Christ, for our mistakes. And do not
discard the Truth itself with our shortcomings and weaknesses.
We call upon you to be aware of the universal scale of the
present Church problems, to reunite with us in common prayer,
and to deepen in our native land the struggle of being Russian
amid the conditions of apostasy, despite the policies of those
worldly and ecclesiastical authorities who do not value Russia’s
universal spiritual vocation. Why is our existence disturbing
to those who call us “a tiny handful of schismatics?”
Saint Mark of Ephesus demonstrated that the Truth is not measured
by the number of ruling hierarchs. All of Orthodoxy can be
defended by a single, solitary “schismatic.” The
holy apostles, the holy fathers and teachers of the Church,
the holy martyrs, call upon us, for the sake of Truth, to
withdraw from falsehood, from the imminent kingdom of Antichrist,
and to struggle in love for Christ, that we may be written
“in the Book of Life of the Lamb, Who was slain from
the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him
hear.”
+Metropolitan Vitaly
+Archbishop Laurus
+Archbishop Mark
+Archbishop Hilarion
+Bishop Kyrill
+Bishop Mitrofan
+Bishop Ambrosy
+Bishop Gabriel
+Bishop Michael
|
