On Compromise in the Hierarchy During the Communist Yoke

Excerpts from two books by Fr. Roman Braga

[Interviewer] Father, before we continue discussing your life in exile, tell us something about Romanian Orthodox spirituality, because even we Romanians do not know what it is. It is evident that we cannot separate spirituality from the Church because the Holy Sacraments are the source of our sanctification. However, from what you have told us about Church life in Romania at that time it seems to me that the visible body of the Church was split into two parts and that only one was moved by the Holy Spirit because many of the persecuted clergy and lay people who were imprisoned prayed and lived a true spiritual life, and the others wanted to please the worldly authorities. In Russia, as well as in Romania and in other Orthodox countries under Communist control, the hierarchy made many compromises. They accepted without any comment the orders which came from the government, while thousands of spiritual fathers, priests, monks and nuns were imprisoned with the knowledge of the Patriarchate, with the knowledge of the visible Church, who did not do anything to bring about their liberation. Something is wrong here. There were Christians at that time who believed that the Holy Spirit had abandoned the Church hierarchy and gone to the prisons. I do not want to confuse the Church with the hierarchy, and I do not want to accuse the hierarchy either. I think they sincerely thought that compromise helps the Church as an institution—but what about the Spirit of the Church? Some miracles happened even under Communism. Even if the theological journals could not be printed without having Ceaucescu’s picture on the first page, the contents of these magazines were of a high theological level. This high spiritual level, however, was lost after the Revolution when the Church became free. Let us not forget that during the Communist regime, The Philokalia was printed, three volumes of Moral Orthodox Theology, by Fr. Staniloae, and his four volumes of dogmatic theology, etc.

Yes, but no simple catechisms, prayer books for the people or manuals of religious instruction, lives of saints—nothing for the simple people. All written works had to pass the Communist censors; in fact there was an official building where the censoring was done. High theology was allowed to be published but not simple spirituality or instruction that the common person could understand. The Communists wanted to catechize the simple people in the Marxist materialistic philosophy. There was no small village without a Communist library. There was a special publishing house of the Education Department called Science for All, which published very simple and clear demonstrations that there is nothing besides matter and material laws and that man came from the apes; Darwinism was in vogue. Highly intellectual people hardly fell under the influence of these childish demonstrations; they were more inclined toward spirituality. But simple working people and country people were easily given the impression that they could learn everything by reading these brochures. The force of Communism was half-knowledge. This is very dangerous, because people think they know everything when they really do not know anything, and they will not listen to reason. These people became the body of atheists in Romania. Among them there was, however, a group of common sense churchgoers and farmers who were not influenced by anything that was against the Church. But these ‘half-learned’ people would argue with the priests against anything spiritual because they had read something at the popular Communist libraries. These libraries were furnished with books against religion, and the priests were not allowed to refute the ideas in them. The Church was not allowed to defend herself; She could deal only with high theology and history.

What I want to learn from you is this: Is the Romanian Church today at the high point of her calling, that calling which if she does not fulfill, she will lose for all time?

I think that the Church, at least in Romania and Russia, was strengthened during the communist persecution. I dare to say that suffering matures not only the individual but the Church also. N. Berdeiev, in one of his books, affirms that the Church was strong during the 300 years of persecutions. Later, when Constantine gave freedom to the Christians, the spiritual life of the Church became diluted; the Church was more of an institution than a spiritual reality. The same thing I happened during communism: the Church was obligated to limit all her activities only to the inside of the four walls of the temple. I do not know the situation in other countries, but the Romanian Church today launched a campaign of physical and spiritual reconstruction. Priests are reaching into the schools, into the hospitals, the army. I am optimistic; I think the Romanian Church will have its contribution in re-bringing Orthodoxy into the soul of the Romanian nation.

How do you see the situation in the history of the Church when there were patriarchs and bishops who were iconoclasts and heretics, and even men who gave in to their lustful desires?

To tell you the truth, I’m not comfortable with the idea that if the hierarchy is sinful the Church no longer exists, with the idea of so-called spiritual elitism, that all the bishops, without exception, should lead an exemplary life above all suspicion. Do not misunderstand, bishops should lead an exemplary life above suspicion, but if they do not this does not negate the existence of the Church.... I do not dare to say that if there is a bishop with personal sins the Spirit of God is no longer with him, because the Holy Spirit always works for the salvation of all people, regardless of the worthiness of those who officiate at the holy Sacraments. The Holy Spirit uses today one hierarch and tomorrow another, but the Church is the same. Many priests are not worthy, but the Holy Spirit does not come and go in relation to our worthiness or unworthiness. The Holy Spirit is the life of the Church, even if some of the members of the Church are sick or wounded by sin.

So you say that who the bishop is is of no importance.

Absolutely not—as long as that bishop believes in God and keeps the Tradition of the Apostles and Holy Fathers unchanged. I said what I said because you mentioned heretical bishops, monophysites and iconoclasts. Those bishops were not the hierarchy of the whole Church. There were still other bishops who convoked the Ecumenical Councils and condemned them—they were the true Church. If the bishops made certain personal compromises, as happened in the Communist era, or were affected by personal sins we cannot say that because of this they do not have within themselves the Spirit of God or that the liturgical acts performed by them are not valid, because then we would be acting as the Protestants....

As far as you are concerned, during the Communist regime there was never really a split between the hierarchy and the faithful?

Never. The Orthodox faithful during this time were so wise that they never left the Church. The churches during the Communist regime were never empty. Whether the hierarchs were compromised or not, I do not know, but the churches were crowded with people, more than during our so-called freedom when we enjoyed liberty and democracy and our bishops were not compromised in any way. I told you that when we were in prison we used to pray for the hierarchy, hoping that they would do something to keep the churches open. I do not know the difference between the hierarchs under the Communist regime and St. Genadius the Scholar, who, when Constantinople was conquered by Mohammed II, signed the great compromise not to ring the bells, not to have processions on the streets with holy relics, not to have services outside the church building—and he is a saint in the calendar. Our hierarchy, though, who managed to keep all the churches open during the Communist occupations are blamed and condemned. What is the difference between one situation and another? I strongly believe that if the Sacramental life of the Church was guaranteed by the hierarchy during the Communist regime it was the Spirit of God which worked through them. What is more important than to save this Sacramental life, which is in fact the salvation of the people?

And I want to tell you something else. A certain Romanian Lutheran pastor invented the theory of the underground Church in Romania, as if certain catacombs existed in which faithful gathered, with the Communists chasing them to kill them. We never had such things in Romania. The underground Church was in each individual. Each bishop had one thing in his heart, while he was obligated to do something else; he felt one thing, while he was forced to speak something else. Each one possessed a dual personality. And this thing was painful; it was a real torture. I heard it in the confessions of many hierarchs from the Communist period who are now retired. We were in prison and we did not have the responsibility of defending and maintaining the life of the Orthodox Church in Romania, and now as refugees I think it is immoral to criticize them here from a safe distance. We who are in America enjoy freedom; we should not criticize people who suffered such psychological torture with the purpose of saving the institution of the Church.

Surely it is not they that saved the Church, because the Church is in God’s hands and not in theirs, but I believe that God will not turn His face from them because of their compromises. Their intention was to save the Sacramental life of Orthodoxy. And let us be sincere: what did they re sacrifice? It was their good name, the formal education of the young people, ceremonies and processions outside of the church..., and these things are not essential to the Church. When St. Genadius the Scholar, whom we mentioned earlier, sent a letter to the monks who were revolting against him because of the concessions made to the Turks, he told them, “It is time to sacrifice the forms in order to keep the essence.” The same things happened in Russia as in Romania. The hierarchy kept the essence, sacrificing what is not essential; this means many of the ceremonial aspects of the liturgical life were given up.

And now, a few words on “spirituality”, which you have repeatedly asked about. I live Orthodox spirituality through the liturgical cycles. I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit is in the Church. When I told you about the monks of Cemica and Condritsa, I was speaking about some great unknown men. There were among them great spiritual monastics whom no one knew about. I do not think “elders” are some “gurus” to whom people go to see them performing miracles or hanging on pillars or living as animals in the clefts of rocks. I think that true spiritual elders live in the discipline of the Church, in obedience and humility. The Spirit of God is in monasteries and in churches, together with the monks and priests incorporated in the monastic and liturgical life, not in isolated individuals. Monks are tempered like steel in humility and obedience. I know that there are people looking at them like wonder workers, anxious to see something miraculous, and they classify them as good or bad by how they “perform”. There was a woman in Iasi who once came to Father Bartolomeu Dothan and asked me if he was a saint. I told her, “I do not know, madam.” She replied, “The world says so.” And I said, “It might be.” And she said, “If he is a saint, why does he not perform some miracles?” She came to such a humble man to see miracles! I am not comfortable with this idea about the spiritual man. Spiritual men are not some spiritual elite, detached from the regular life of the Church. When we mention them, we say “St. Seraphim of Sarov”. Sarov was a monastery. We speak of a man incorporated in a discipline. The same thing with our Romanian saints like “St. Chiriac of Taslau”. Taslau is a monastery with a fixed discipline. “Iosif of Bisericani”, another monastery, “Onofrei of Sihastria”, “Paisie of Neamts”, “Daniel the Hermit of Voronets”, “Ghelasie of Rametsi”... all these are remembered by their monasteries which had a fixed discipline and rules; these men were incorporated into this discipline. The Spirit is there where the monastery is, where the Church is. Their spiritual exploits are obedience and community discipline.

We speak today so much of Father Cleopa of Sihastria. I have a videotape of him speaking to some students from Bucharest University. Do you know what he told them? “Why did you come to me, because I am like a rotten log, a piece of broken pottery. May Paradise consume you! I want to see you in Heaven exactly as you are here, but now because you are here, let us speak of something very important.” And he started, “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” And he continued with the beginning prayers, Heavenly King..., Holy God..., Our Father.... See why they I traveled such a long distance to see him? He did not tell them more than there is in a prayer book, in the Book of Hours. “People went to him because in his youth he had been a shepherd watching the monastery’s sheep. They would not have gone to him if he had a doctorate in theology, but he was a simple monk, like those I saw in my youth at Condritsa and Cernica. He did not tell them what they should do. Each young person had in his pocket a prayer book, and he did not do anything other than direct their attention to that prayer book. Father Cleopa does not even confess people; he sends them to their parish priest. So I think that we should not transform this extraordinary, humble elite into something detached from the Church, into something sensational or spectacular. I think that the wisdom of God does not come to them directly from Heaven, but through the Sacramental channels of the Church.

Nevertheless, Father, we cannot deny that these personalities, not to say saints, radiate in a special way there in the community of monks. I do not deny that any monk is a light in himself, but not all shine with the Grace of the Holy Spirit in the same measure. You know that even the stars in the sky do not sparkle in the same way, for as St. Paul says, ...one star differs from another star in glory (I Cor. 15:41). Some you can see clearly, but others you cannot see at all. Even if their brilliance is not a result of their ascetic endeavors; these men nevertheless constitute the body of the Church members with a special purpose: God wants these members to use their merits to benefit the whole Church. It is true that the Patericon is not a book of the spiritual elite; but nevertheless, it is considered a book of models of the spiritual life.

The humbler they are, the more they radiate. This is how I saw them and understood them. I was witnessed by the barefoot monk who was the administrator of Cernica Monastery. You see them as spiritual only if you are looking for spiritual things. However, if you approach them out of simple curiosity or go to them with intellectual problems or psychological theories, you question them in vain because they say, “Let us pray,” not “Let us discuss.” For them prayer resolves everything; as Father Cleopa says, “Go to the priest in your parish, confess your sins, take Communion, do not commit adultery, be honest, go to church on Sundays,... and you save yourself” There is no philosophy here.

It is true, Father. I have heard all these things many times; I have read them in many books. Even so, they roll off us like water off a duck’s back. When we read about them in books they do not touch the depth of our souls as they do when we hear them from a special spiritual man because there is an unspeakable power of the Spirit that works only through certain fathers who shake us into wakefulness and enlighten our faith.

It is the power of the Church. It is the power of the Holy Spirit of God, Who works in the Church through these men who live in and remain always in the Church. We do not speak here only of monks but also of married priests. For example, you know Father Gheorghe Rosca. He was the spiritual father of many members of the Burning Bush Movement. He was a simple priest but all the intellectuals in Bucharest came to him, and these intellectuals were theosophists, involved in all kinds of false mysticism. There were many other married priests who were great spiritual fathers. Spirituality is not connected only to monasteries, to the harsh ascesis of the monks; it also exists in the lay priesthood, and I dare to humble myself and say more; any village priest, regardless of his sins or material interests, exercises a spiritual function.

Then how can you explain the spiritual crisis which has come about in some of the nations of the world, diminishing the Grace of God in the people? I could be wrong; maybe the Grace is still there, but the spiritual feeling in people seems to have changed, and they do not seem to see the saving power of God working in the world. But, once again, the same God says that He will take away His Spirit from them if they continue in their sinful ways.

The crises are within us, I think, and they often come about because of some ill-fated cultural influences. You said earlier that the same persecution of the Church existed in the last century, before the era of Communism, only in a little more civilized fashion. There is, nevertheless, a difference between that cultural persecution by the intelligentsia who wanted to change the religious mentality of the people and the Communist persecution. They wanted to introduce secularism and modern institutions, copying the Western countries where secularism was more prevalent. In the 19th century, the government wanted to bring Russia and Romania up to the level of Western countries. Our countries were still living in the Middle Ages, so to speak. Our constitution was still based on the holy canons of the Church and on Christian traditions. They regarded Orthodoxy to be old fashioned compared with Catholicism. However, Communism attempted to destroy the source of faith within us. For example, Lunaciarski wrote Lenin: “If you want to control a man, kill his intimacy.” I consider intimacy to mean the temple of God within him.

Father, it seems to me that the intellectual class of the 19th century, who distorted the Orthodox Romanian tradition and broke with the spirituality of our people, are presented in textbooks as being representative of the Romanian nation. Even priests, monks and church people consider them as such. I do not understand, Father; is it possible to present the history of a nation completely detached from its spirituality?

It is true that our 19th century intelligentsia thought that the social progress of our nation was hindered by traditional Orthodox mentality. At that time there truly existed a break between the Church hierarchy and the intellectual class, but there was not a break between the hierarchy and the Romanian people as a whole. This kind of break has never existed in our history. The intelligentsia does not represent any country in its entirety. I do not think that there was a total break between Orthodox people and the hierarchy during the Communist regime either. Our people are wiser than we think. They have always understood the limits of the Church leaders, what they can and cannot do, so they have never lost their faith in the Church. Faithful people do not judge their hierarchy: who is worthy or who is unworthy; they are ashamed to do that. They can see the good in the saying, “Do as I say and not as I do.” No matter how simple we consider the Orthodox country people to be, they know what the Church and spirituality are, and they are never scandalized by the sins of certain priests or hierarchs. They know that not all the hierarchy was corrupt; there were enough good bishops and good patriarchs. There were, of course, some necessary compromises made and, sure, as everywhere there were bad priests, but the Church had at the same time holy people, martyred priests and spiritual monks. People have in their hearts a discernment, by the Grace of God, which comes from above. In my opinion, the Orthodox Church and spirituality resides in people. This is why the urbanization imposed by Communist leader Ceaucescu was a crime against the Romanian culture and the spirituality which resides in the simple country people. And, finally, Orthodox spirituality is in each individual who keeps within himself the eschatological feeling, the feeling of eternity and the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our simple countrymen in their simplicity always think of death, while the intellectual class has lost this eschatological feeling. This waiting and watchful spirit makes a monk out of each individual; there is something monastic in each one of us.

What do you think, then, is the role of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the world?

I want to discourage the chauvinism of some of the intellectuals in the Romanian Orthodox Church today who say that the salvation of the world will come from Romania. The role of the Romanian Church is no other than the role of the Russian, Greek or Bulgarian Churches. Orthodoxy in any country has the same purpose—to unite everyone in God and to maintain Jesus in our hearts through the Holy Sacraments of the Church. What other role could the Romanian Church have than the spiritualization of Romanian culture on the national level? As Orthodoxy in Russia under the influence of Optina Monastery transfigured Russian culture, I believe that we, too, especially now after the Liberation, must continue to bring about the transfiguration of Romanian culture with the help of our Orthodox intellectual class. The Church does not play a political role, not even an intellectual one; we must open the minds of our people to the resurrection and the transfiguration of the world.

I have always feared the temptation of the anti-Christ hidden in an uncontrolled nationalism. I do not see the evil to be in the clergy, whether they be good, very good or weak, but I see the work of the anti-Christ in something that will surprise you. We are not better than other nations in the world; we are not privileged and favored by God in a special way, as certain contemporary movements in Romania claim. Our role is the same as that of other nations. When we exalt ourselves, we become proud, killing any trace of spirituality we might have had; in this way, we truly fall into the hands of the anti-Christ. Orthodoxy in Romania does not consist of only the hierarchy; we are all the Church. If the whole Romanian nation, clergy and laity alike, do not fall on our knees, confessing our sins and recognizing our unworthiness, we are not good Orthodox Christians. How can the salvation of the world come from Romania when our women have one-and-a- half million abortions a year, as many as in the entire United States? Dare we say that we are pleasing to God and the salvation of the world will come from us? This idea is a diabolic trap.

Father, what you say is true, but the people are not guilty. How many hierarchs descend amidst the people to give them spiritual counsel, I mean to walk on the street with them as our hermits of old used to do? How many continue the tradition begun by our pre-Christian hermits who lived in the mountains but came to the communities and exercised great authority over the Dacian leaders and their people? Today, some Romanians complain that they have never even seen the face of their bishop. Why do not they come down to say, “Brothers, we are sinners. Let’s confess to each other, starting with the Patriarch of the country?” They are as inaccessible as Pharaohs in their palaces. Christ did not talk from the top of the mountain hidden in a cloud or from the Holy of Holies from behind closed curtains. Here is the true power of the shepherd; the sheep follow him because they know his voice, and he gives his life for his sheep.

Dear brother, I think that along with secularization there has developed an isolation of the hierarchy from the people, and secularization came with the monarchy. Remember from the Old Testament that people came to Samuel asking him for a king, and Samuel, who was the judge and leader in Israel, said to God, “Lord, they do not want me anymore.” The Lord answered, Listen to the voice of the people, because they do not hate you; they hate Me. They do not want Me to rule over them anymore. (I Kings 8:7). Our medieval rulers reigned by the will of God; they built our monasteries and churches. At that time bishops, metropolitans and princes were present in church every Sunday, confessing their sins and taking Communion together. But in the case of Romania, because our kings were only nominal Christians and placed themselves above the people, the hierarchy too have shut themselves up in an ivory tower and have become an elite, I mean a caste.

Between God and Satan (1976)

As the devil puts on a robe of light to deceive if possible even God’s chosen ones, in the same way he wraps lies in the vestment of truth, giving the illusion to those who utter lies that they proclaim universal principles.

We cannot give any other interpretation to contemporary Romanian theology, in which all the intellectuals of the Church are mobilized and asked to write in defense of the atheistic regime. The theological and religious press in Bucharest, which before World War II dealt with the education of children and young adults and also published religious books for country people as well as intellectuals, is transformed today into an apologist of Communist reforms who attempt to justify with evangelical texts or speculation from the works of the Holy Fathers. Reading the book, The Servant Church, by Antonie Plamadeala, assistant bishop to the Patriarch with a doctorate from Heythrop College in Oxford, England, you immediately realize how in Romania a “Marxist theology” was initiated. The author is a prominent personality in the Church life of Romania. No wonder, then, that he was forced to introduce Communist ideas into theological teaching. The book is a perfect theological demonstration of the Communist form of socialism. His Grace Antonie not only sees in St. John Chrysostom a precursor of Marxism, but even finds in the sermons of this Holy Father the “theory of plus value” treated by Karl Marx in Das Kapital.* The author treats in depth the social aspect of the works of the Holy Fathers: poverty, charity, the duty of the rich to help the poor, etc., but he forgets to mention in his book that St. Chrysostom did not become a yes-man of the Byzantine emperors, even though they were Christian, but he criticized them, being revolted by their social iniquities. He attacked Eutropius and the empress Eudoxia, urging the people not to participate in imperial festivities during the Holy Liturgy but rather to enter the church and pray.

What if His Grace Antonie would deliver a homily from the ambo of the Patriarchal church in Bucharest against the anti-Christian measures that the Romanian Communist government took which prohibited high school and college students and professors and soldiers from entering the church? St. John Chrysostom would not defend the authorities; on the contrary, he invited them to enter the church and pray. What if His Grace would protest against the atheistic speeches of Nicolae Ceaucescu, defending the repression of individual liberties in Romania? We cannot understand how His Grace, who spent years in the Communist prisons together with thousands of believers, priests and monks, could promote Communist principles. Does he think that if the Holy Cappadocian Fathers lived in Romania today they would not refute the Communist Party because of the over one hundred atheistic books they published in which the Mother of God is represented as a prostitute and the Holy Trinity in the form of male sexual organs? Would they praise the Communist leaders for such filthy works out of fear of offending them? Would they urge the people with Biblical texts to obey the governing authorities (Romans 13:1)? Does he think that St. Paul really obeyed the authorities when they prohibited him from preaching the word of God in public? Did St. Paul not die as a martyr because he did not obey the authorities? Would he have the courage to preach against atheism and materialism in the public squares or in the national Congress as St. Paul did in Athens in the Areopagus? Because we live in a country under a Communist regime why does His Grace not employ his literary talent and theological training in some apologies against those who count religion as the opium of the people as the apologists Athenagoras, Tertullian or St. Justin the Martyr did?

We know that this is not possible, and we understand. Fully enjoying the advantages of freedom in the western countries, I cannot recommend to others who live in terror and temptations to become martyrs. However, if you are afraid and forced to collaborate with Satan, at least do not worship him and do not represent him as an angel of light. It is a contradictory situation: the Church in Romania today uses her best theologians and her missions abroad, as well as delegates sent to ecumenical meetings, to defend the acts of an atheistic regime. We accept the broad views of Romanian theologians who walk the middle line, but when in the World Council of Churches someone raises the issue of persecutions in Romania, the Romanian theologians jump in the air: “If there were not freedom in Romania, we would not be here!” They feel offended and sometimes even leave the meeting. We know that the government pays the Romanian Patriarchate for the travel expenses of these delegates abroad. They are not paid to defend Orthodoxy, which the Communists in Bucharest would like to eliminate as quickly as possible, but paid to give the impression that in external relations, the Romanian Church is totally free.**

It is well known that the innumerable external contacts of the Romanian Church would not be possible without the approval of the Communist government, and they are organized only through the Department of External Affairs. The government uses the Church to make favorable propaganda abroad. As for religious freedom inside the country, Romanian laws recommend this: “Any contact or communication of the Church and Church orders and dispositions should be approved by the governmental agencies of control which are branches of the Department of Religious Affairs. This means that any letter published by the Church must pass through Communist censorship.

Thus, Romanian hierarchs do not have even the freedom to be silent. They must praise the government aloud. They must cense Satan and adore him as “the desolation of abomination.” (Dan. 12:11)

—Cuvantul Romanesc, May 1976