The Response to Elder Tavrion
THE LIFE of Archimandrite Tavrion published in The
Orthodox Word, no. 96, evoked for the most part a positive
response: readers on the whole, judging from their comments to
the editors, accepted it in the way it was intended to be
read—as an inspiring example of genuine Orthodox courage and
spiritual life in the almost impossible conditions of Soviet
life. The accompanying articles, "What Does the Catacomb
Church Think?" and especially the "Catacomb Epistle of
1962," set forth a position of uncompromising non-acceptance
of the betrayal of the Moscow Patriarchate and refusal to have
communion with it, while at the same time showing pastoral
concern for the priests and faithful who try their best to be
Orthodox even in the Moscow Patriarchate, where they find
themselves by force of circumstances.
Some readers, however, noting that Elder
Tavrion was a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, interpreted the
publication of his life as a betrayal of the Catacomb Church and
as a total reversal of our stand with regard to the Moscow
Patriarchate; and because the life of Elder Tavrion was sent for
publication by Metropolitan Philaret, together with the
Metropolitan's note explaining Fr. Tavrion's attempt to stand
apart from the betraying policies of the Moscow Patriarchate,
some of these readers did not hesitate to express their criticism
of the Metropolitan himself, as if this indicated that he and
even the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia had radically
changed their opinion with regard to the Russian Church
situation. The disturbance created by this criticism reached the
Synod of Bishops and resulted in the "Decision" on this
controversy which is printed below in this issue, which reaffirms
the unchanging position of the Church Outside of Russia and
admonishes those who are too quick in their criticism even of
their own Metropolitan.
This disturbance (which one may hope is now a
thing of the past, after the authoritative statement of the
Synod) has served to remind us all that the position of the
Church Outside of Russia within the Russian Church as a whole is
by no means correctly understood by everyone. The problem is not
that this position is really very difficult to understand, but
that it is all too easy to oversimplify it and to state, at one
extreme, that the betrayal of Sergianism (the compromising
position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has become a slavish
tool of Communist purposes) is something unimportant towards
which our attitude can change with time; or, at the other
extreme, that the Moscow Patriarchate is entirely fallen away
from Orthodoxy and is without grace and its fate is of no more
interest to us than that of any sect in Russia.
Since the cause of this disturbance was the
mistaken belief that the Metropolitan, The Orthodox Word,and
presumably a large part of the Church Outside of Russia had
"reversed their attitude" towards the Catacomb Church
and the Moscow Patriarchate, let us examine here some of the main
aspects of our Church's attitude to the Russian Church situation,
comparing statements from the new "Decision" of the
Synod of Bishops with other authoritative statements, both within
the Catacomb Church and the Church Outside of Russia, and
comments made in The Orthodox Word over the years from
1965 to the present.
1. The new "Decision" of the Synod
states: "The condemnation by our hierarchy of the agreement
with the atheists promulgated by the Moscow Patriarchate at the
time of Metropolitan Sergius certainly remains in effect and
cannot be changed except by the repentance of the Moscow
Patriarchate. This policy, which seeks to serve both Christ and
Belial, is unquestionably a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Therefore, we
can have no liturgical communion with any bishop or cleric of the
Moscow Patriarchate.... We can fully approve only that part of
the Church in Russia which is celled the Catacomb Church, and
only with her can we have full communion."
The Orthodox Word has set forth this
fundamental position of the Church Outside of Russia (which is
identical to the position of the Catacomb Church) year after
year. The latest expression of it, the "Catacomb Epistle of
1962," states it in the language of a Catacomb Church
representative, and this expression is certainly no less strong
in tone than the Catacomb document of ten years ago, "Russia
and the Church Today" (The Orthodox Word, 1972,
no.44). The Orthodox Word in its recent article defending
Fr. Dimitry Dudko repeated this position once again: "the
very principle of 'Sergianism' is a betrayal of Orthodoxy, as Fr.
Dimitry has said; this is why the free Russian Church Outside of
Russia can have no communion with this jurisdiction.... We have
no communion with his hierarchs and even with him (until he
becomes free of them)"(no. 92, pp. 122, 137).
2. We have no hope that the church situation in
Russia will change in any fundamental way as long as Communism is
in power. This admittedly is a private opinion rather than an
official position, but it is an opinion widely shared among the
clergy and laymen of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, and
over sixty years of experience with the Communist regime has only
confirmed it. In particular, every "liberalization" in
the regime's attitude towards the Church has only been a tactical
device within the larger purpose of the total liquidation of the
Church.
The Orthodox Word in 1966
stated:"The rescue of the Soviet Church... cannot come from
within itself, and most definitely not under Soviet
conditions.... Nothing is to be hoped for from any 'changes'
within the USSR; the necessary precondition for the healing of
the infected organism is the total overthrow of the Communist
system. Only then can there be even talk of a return to normal
religious life in Russia" (no. 10, p. 148).
The same thin" was repeated in 1981:
"The Moscow Patriarchate has not changed and undoubtedly
will not change until Communism itself falls in Russia; there is
no hope whatever that a return to normal Orthodox church life
will occur through the official church"(no. 96, p.22).
3. The "Decision" of the Synod of
Bishops states: "The situation of the Church in Russia is
without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of
us separately."Despite the uncompromisingness of our stand
against the betrayal of "Sergianism," we make no
"definitions" about it; in particular, our bishops have
refused to make any statement that the Moscow Patriarchate is
"without grace" and "fallen away" from
Orthodoxy. This position has been set forth many times in The
Orthodox Word in an uncompromisingly anti-Sergianist article
in 1974 (no. 59, pp. 240-1).
This position is very difficult to understand
for those who would like the church situation to be
"simple"and"black or white." For such people
it is incomprehensible how a Catacomb Church zealot like the
author of the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962" could
recommend that his spiritual children receive communion in a
Sergianist church if they can find no Catacomb church, or how a
Catacomb priest like Archimandrite Tavrion could join the
official church. Not all members of the Catacomb Church, to be
sure, would approve such actions: but those who do approve and
practice them have in mind only the benefit of their flocks, who
might otherwise be deprived entirely of church communion and fall
into despair. Such practical questions, in Soviet conditions,
cannot always be given categorical answers. The
"Decision" of the Synod of Bishops notes positively
that "we see some efforts to remain outside the apostate
policies of the Patriarchate's leaders in an attempt to attain
salvation even in the territory of Antichrist's kingdom."
That at least a part of the Moscow Patriarchate
is still regarded by the free Russian Church as not entirely
having lost its Orthodoxy may be seen in the 1976 Epistle of the
Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia,
"To the Russian People in the Homeland, "where the
bishops address the courageous priests both of the Catacomb
Church and of the Moscow Patriarchate as genuine priests (The
Orthodox Word, 1976, no. 70, p. 164). Expressing the same
view, Bishop Gregory of Manhattan has written: "Those in
Russia who are holding fast to Orthodoxy and preaching the truth,
not submitting to the influence of outside powers,, are not
merely our allies, but our brethren in one end the same
Church" (Orthodox Life, 1979, no. 6, p. 40). Ten
years ago The Orthodox Word remarked: "As John Dunlop
has noted, on the popular level the boundary between the
'official' and the 'catacomb' Church is somewhat fluid. The writings of Boris Talantov testify to the presence of a deep division today within
the Moscow Patriarchate between the 'Sergianist' hierarchy with
its 'Communist Christianity' and the truly Orthodox faithful who
reject this impious 'adaptation to atheism"' (1971, no. 36,
p. 38).
Perhaps the best statement on this whole
question comes from a leading Catacomb hierarch of the 1920's and
'30's, now to be canonized as a New Martyr, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan. In answer to the ecclesiastical legalism of
Metropolitan Sergius, he wrote to him in 1929: "It amazes
you that, while refraining from celebrating Liturgy with you, I
nonetheless do not consider either myself or you to be outside
the Church. 'For church thinking such a theory is completely
unacceptable, ' you declare; 'it is an attempt to keep ice on a
hot grill.' If in this case there is any attempt on my part, it
is not to keep ice on a hot grill, but rather to melt away the
ice of a dialectical bookish application of the canons and to
preserve the sacredness of their spirit. I refrain from
liturgizing with you not because the Mystery of the Body and
Blood of Christ would not be actualized at our joint celebration,
but because the communion of the Chalice of the Lord would be to
both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our inward
attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church
relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility
of offering in complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace,
the sacrifice of praise. Therefore, the whole fullness of my
refraining concerns only you and the hierarchs one in mind with
you, but not the ordinary clergy, and even less laymen" (The
Orthodox Word, 1977, no. 75, p. 183-4).
4. In accordance with the famous
"Testament" of Metropolitan Anastassy, Chief Hierarch
of the Russian Church Outside of Russia from 1936 to 1964, a
final judgment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian church
situation cannot be made now, but must wait for a free Church
Council, which can obviously be assembled only after the fall of
Communism. The last paragraph of this "Testament"
states: "As for the Moscow Patriarchate and her hierarchs,
inasmuch as they are in an intimate, active, and well-wishing
union with the Soviet power which openly confesses its complete
godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire Russian
people, with them the Church Abroad, preserving its purity, must
not have any communion whatever, whether canonically, in prayer,
or even in ordinary everyday contact, at the same time giving
each of them over to the final judgment of the Sobor (Council) of
the future free Russian Church" (The Orthodox Word, 1970,
no. 33-34, p. 239).
(Some have quoted this passage to indicate the
impossibility of our having any contact whatever with priests of
the Moscow Patriarchate. It should therefore be noted that
Metropolitan Anastassy here points only to the
"hierarchs" who are in a "well-wishing union with
the Soviet power. " The priests and laymen who are bravely
protesting against the "Sergianism" of the Patriarchate
are clearly in a different category.)
The subject of this future free Council is one
that has occupied the thoughts both of the Catacomb Church and
the Church Outside of Russia ever since the Sergian Declaration
of 1927. In that year Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, the first real head of the Catacomb Church, wrote:
"In separating from Metropolitan Sergius and his acts, we do
not separate from our lawful Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Peter,
nor from the Council, which will meet at some time in the future,
of those Orthodox hierarchs who have remained faithful. May this
Council, our sole competent judge, not then hold us guilty for
our boldness" (The Orthodox Word, 1971, no. 36, p.
26).
Similarly, in 1934 Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan
wrote: " I firmly believe that the Orthodox Episcopate, with
brotherly union and mutual support, will preserve the Russian
Church, with God's help, in age-old Orthodoxy all the time of the
validity of the Patriarchal Testament (of Patriarch Tikhon), and
will conduct it to a lawful Council" (The Orthodox
Word, 1977, no . 75, p. 189).
In 1962 the anonymous author of the
"Catacomb Epistle" wrote: "We believe that if
human life is to continue on earth, then some time there will
gather a council which will justify our boldness and will justly
evaluate the 'wise policy' of Metropolitan Sergius and his
followers who wished to 'save the Church' at the price of her
immaculateness and truth" (The Orthodox Word, 1981,
no. 96, p. 31).
In 1970 the Catacomb authors of "Russia
and the Church Today" stated: "We believe that if the
world does not perish, sooner or later in liberated Russia there
will be a Local Council of our Church, to which the fruits of
their labors and exploits for the long period without a Council.
. . will be brought forth by the Moscow Patriarchate and by the
persecuted Russian ‘Catacomb' Church, to which the authors
of this article belong" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no.
44. p. 132).
And in 1971 The Orthodox Word, commenting
on the writings of
Boris Talantov, nosed that they
"will doubtless be used as testimony at that longed-for
Council of the entire free Russian Church, including the Churches
of the Catacombs and of the Diaspora, that will finally judge the
situation created by the Communist Yoke and Sergianism" (no.
36, p. 38).
5. The "Decision" of the Synod of
Bishops states: "Any departure from atheism and 'Sergianism'
must be seen as a positive step towards pure Orthodoxy even
though it not yet be the opening of the way to ecclesiastical
union with us... Our interest in all aspects of religious life in
Russia cannot ignore any positive event we see against the
background of total apostasy. We should not focus our attention
exclusively on those facts which merit unconditional
condemnation."
And in fact, the interest and sympathy which
the Church Outside of Russia as a whole has shown to such priests
as Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite Tavrion is by no means a
thing of the past few years. This interest and sympathy has been
reflected in the pages of The Orthodox Word from the very
first year of its existence.
The third issue of The Orthodox Word in
l965 published an "Appeal" from believers of the Moscow
Patriarchate in Pochaev. A number of suffering clergy of the
Patriarchate are mentioned, with a special description of
"Abbot Joseph... a great man of prayer and our spiritual and
bodily physician" (p. 109). This same "Appeal"
states that "the Orthodox Church is in great danger. . .
Only the Pochaev monks and a small number of the clergy stand
firmly for the apostolic traditions and don't give in an inch to
the Antichrist" (pp. 110-111). The editorial comment at the
end of this "Appeal" stated: "One must choose: to
support, in any way, the puppets of Communism, who serve the
ultimate aim of the complete liquidation of religion; or to stand
with the persecuted believers" (here, specifically of the
Moscow Patriarchate) "who have dared to tell the world what
is really happening today behind the Iron Curtain" (p. 114).
The next issue of The Orthodox Word in
1965 contained a favorable description of a "Brotherhood of
Orthodox Youth" composed of "sons and daughters of the
Orthodox Church" which acts because the clergy is not free,
but "without making any attempt against the canonical
authority of the hierarchs" (no . 4, p . 159) .
In 1971 a large part of two issues of The
Orthodox Word was devoted to the life and writings of Boris
Talantov, a layman of the Moscow Patriarchate who mercilessly
exposed the betrayal of Sergianism even while believing that the
Catacomb Church, while fully Orthodox, was a "sect. "
In the title of one article about him he is called an
"Orthodox confessor," and in the article he is
presented as "an inspiring example of Christian courage
against overwhelming obstacles" and "a fearless
confessor of the holy Orthodox faith" (1971, no. 36, p. 35).
Like Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Talantov believed that "because of
the corruption end betrayal of the bishops the believers should
not disperse to their homes and organize separate sects, but
rather preserving unity, they should begin the accusation by the
whole people of the corrupt false pastors and cleanse the Church
of them" (1971, no. 41, p. 292).
In these years, despite such support shown for
courageous members of the Moscow Patriarchate, there were no
Protests at all against these articles in The Orthodox Word. The
articles in recent years on Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite
Tavrion, and remarks on other courageous priests of the Moscow
Patriarchate, are only a continuation of these earlier articles.
Perhaps the most eloquent expression of the
sympathy of the free Russian Church for the struggling priests
within the Moscow Patriarchate who have spoken out against
Sergianism is the statement addressed to them by the Sobor of
Bishops of the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia in 1976, in
their Epistle "To the Russian People in the Homeland":
"We kiss the Cross which you also have taken upon yourself,
O pastors who have found the courage and the power of spirit to
be open accusers of the faint heartedness of your hierarchs who
have capitulated to the atheists, to be fearless gatherers and
instructors of those who seek spiritual food—first of all
young people. We know of your exploit, we read about you, we read
what you have written, we pray for you and ask your prayers for
our flock in the Diaspora. Christ is in our midst! He is and
shall be!
"The life of the Church continues even
under the pressure of atheism, often taking, thanks to the
pressure and violence, forms unusual in peaceful circumstances,
breaking out through the bonds and chains into the freedom of
spirit and the victory of the children of God! With love we
follow this process in our Homeland and rejoice over it" (The
Orthodox Word, 1976, no . 70, p . 164).
The "Decision" of the Synod of
Bishops notes that the criticism evoked by the "Elder
Tavrion" Article involved "especially those who are not
very familiar with the conditions of church life in the
USSR." Such critics have failed to notice, as the
"Decision" also says, that "the situation of the
Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be
prescribed by any one of us separately." The attempt to fit
the Russian church situation into some standard canonical
"norm" that will enable one to dismiss the Moscow
Patriarchate entirely as a formal "schism" or even
"heresy"—is a mistake.
The "Decision" of the Synod of
Bishops is a welcome correction of this mistake and is a clear
sign to us that in these perilous days our Orthodoxy must not
become something narrow, negative, and critical. We must temper
the overlogicalness of our Western mentality (which has formed
all of us in the modern world, whether we realize it or not) with
a loving, pastoral concern for all those who still wish to be
Orthodox, despite the terrible conditions of our times and even
the outright betrayal of many hierarchs.
A young priest of the Greek Archdiocese in
America, before his tragic death several years ago, once called The
Orthodox Word a "conscience of Orthodoxy" today.
This is precisely what the Russian Church Outside of Russia could
and should be for the Orthodox world today. This church body has
maintained its existence now for sixty years in a Russian church
situation that is entirely abnormal and in some respects
unprecedented in church history. It has done so by means of a
kind of church "instinct" which has not betrayed it,
end which allows it to maintain its separateness from the
betrayal of a large part of the Orthodox Church leadership today
without losing contact with the still living conscience of the
sound part of the Orthodox clergy and faithful in many
jurisdictions.
This church instinct is by no means blind, but
is quite capable of discerning mistaken attitudes even in the
suffering faithful for whom our Church is at pains to show such
support. Thus, in en open letter to Father Gleb Yakunin, a
courageous and self-sacrificing priest now suffering
ecclesiastical suspension and cruel imprisonment in Russia for
his defense of believers' rights, Metropolitan Philaret not long
ago found it necessary to point out this priest's mistaken
support for the Roman Catholic religious literature being sent
into Russia, poisoned as it is by false teaching and heresy (Orthodox
Russia, June 28, 1979, pp. 1-2). Likewise, The Orthodox
Word in 1966 criticized the false "ecumenical" and
"Berdyaevan" views of the famous open letters of the
two Moscow priests (no. 10, pp. 145-148). Such criticism, it is
true, must be charitable and take into account the poverty of the
Orthodox literature available in Russia; one very conservative
emigre, Eugene Vagin, has pointed out that often pseudo-Orthodox
writings like those of Berdyaev are almost all that is available
to a sincere Orthodox searcher, and the mistakes such a searcher
might make under their influence can be corrected later on by
exposure to sounder Orthodox texts. In our freedom, we are able
to help with this process of correction, but we must do so with
patience and love, especially bearing in mind that we in the West
are exposed to the ravages of a different spiritual
infirmity—the Western passion for over-logicalness and
"super-correctness" which makes us want to "define" church
matters more precisely than our abnormal conditions will allow.
In such conditions we should keep more often in
mind the prophetic words of the last testament of Metropolitan
Benjamin of Petrograd (martyred in 1922): "Now we must put
off our learning and self-opinion and give way to grace." It
is this grace, and not our calculations and definitions of it,
that has preserved the Russian Church in this frightful century
of its worst trial, and it is nothing else that will yet preserve
it until the calling of the free Council that one day, as we all
hope, will at last bring peace and order to church life.
From The Orthodox Word, May-June 1981 (98), 123-136.
+ + +
The Decision of the Synod of Bishops
The following document is printed at the
request of the Synod of Bishops and Archbishop Anthony of San
Francisco. The editors of The Orthodox Word are entirely
in agreement with it and pray that it will cause an end to
discord in the Church.
On 12/25 August, 1981, the Synod of Bishops of
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia heard the report of
the President of the Synod of Bishops on the following matter:
the appearance of an article about Archimandrite Tavrion
published in issue number 96 of The Orthodox Word has
caused great consternation among some readers, especially those
who are not very familiar with the conditions of church life in
the USSR. In my covering letter to the editor of the magazine
(which was not intended to be published with the article), they
saw what they believed to be a kind of approval of the dual
position taken by the late archimandrite rather than the simple
forwarding of some interesting, informative material.
Archimandrite Tavrion, after long years of imprisonment as a
member of the Catacomb Church, somehow came to join the Moscow
Patriarchate while never sharing its policies. None of us has
ever had any relations with him. We only know that he advised
those of his spiritual children leaving the USSR and going West
to join the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. It is also
known that when talking to his spiritual children, he condemned
the political subservience of the Patriarchate to the atheistic
authorities. His pastoral and spiritual methods were rather
unusual. In the favorable description of his life written by his
spiritual daughter, some readers found not only the fact that he
brought people into the Church, but they also suspected us of
approving his compromising attitude toward the Church This is not
true.
The condemnation by our hierarchy of the
agreement with the atheists promulgated by the Moscow
Patriarchate at the time of Metropolitan Sergius certainly
remains in effect and cannot be changed except by the repentance
of the Moscow Patriarchate. This policy. which seeks to serve
both Christ and Belial, is unquestionably a betrayal of
Orthodoxy. Therefore, we can have no liturgical communion with
any bishop or cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate. But this does
not prevent us from studying with love and sorrow the religious
life in Russia. In some cases we see a complete collapse while in
others we see some efforts to remain outside the apostate
policies of the Patriarchate’s leaders in an attempt to
attain salvation even in the territory of Antichrist's kingdom
(as in the case mentioned in Canon II of St. Athanasius), and
bearing in mind the words of our Saviour that by a hasty judgment
one might root up the wheat along with the tares (Matt. 13:29).
Under varying circumstances. the venom of sinful compromise
poisons the soul in varying degrees.
As the free part of the Russian Church, we can
fully approve only that part of the Church in Russia which is
called the Catacomb Church, and only with her can we have full
communion. Yet any departure from atheism and
"Sergianism" must be seen as a positive step towards
pure Orthodoxy even though it not yet be the opening of the way
to ecclesiastical union with us. Beyond this, our present
evaluation and judgment cannot proceed, due to lack of
information. However, our interest in all aspects of religious
life in Russia cannot ignore any positive event we see against
the background of total apostasy. We should not focus our
attention exclusively on those facts which merit unconditional
condemnation.
In light of this, the life and activity of the
late Archimandrite Tavrion was an interesting phenomenon. And for
this reason, I found his biography worthy of attention and
publication while certainly disapproving his membership in the
Sergian church organization. This was apparently misunderstood by
some readers: I was not offering his example as worthy of
imitation.
RESOLVED: To take into consideration the report
of the President of the Synod of Bishops and, sharing his
opinion, to publish his account in the religious press. At the
same time, the Synod of Bishops deems it necessary to remind its
flock that first of all, we must strongly uphold our own faith
and exercise our zeal in the authentic life of the Church under
the conditions in which God has placed each one of us, striving
towards the salvation of our souls. Due to insufficient
information, deliberations about the significance and quality of
various events in Russia do not at present provide adequate
guidance for the faithful. Indeed, in the majority of cases these
deliberations cannot serve as instruction but must rather be
regarded as personal opinions.
The Synod of Bishops is grieved by the reaction
to the article about Archimandrite Tavrion and the hasty
conclusions which some zealous believers, and even some
clergymen, have drawn. Mutual love and concern for Church unity,
which is especially necessary in times of heresy and schism,
require from each of us great caution in what we say. If no one
is supposed to condemn his neighbor in haste, even more care is
demanded where our own primate is concerned. Rash implications
about his allegedly unorthodox preaching as well as open
criticism in sermons reveal a tendency towards condemnation and
division which is unseemly in Christians. The Apostle said,
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?" How
much more appropriate might it be to say. "Who art thou that
judgest thy metropolitan?" Such an attitude, which can
easily develop into schism, is strongly censured by the canons of
the Church, for it shows willful appropriation by clerics of the
"Judgment belonging to metropolitans" (Canon XIII of
the First-and-Second Council). Everyone must be very careful in
his criticism, particularly when expressing it publicly,
remembering that "Judgment and justice take hold on
thee" (Job 36:17). If, contrary to the apostolic
teaching about hierarchical distribution of duties and
responsibilities all the clerics and laymen were to supervise
their hierarchs (I Cor. 12:28-30), then instead of being a
hierarchical Body of Christ, our Church would turn into a kind of
democratic anarchy where the sheep assume the function of the
shepherd. A special grace is bestowed upon bishops to help them
in their work. Those who seek to control their bishop should be
reminded of Canon LXIV of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which
quotes the words of St. Gregory the Theologian:
Learning in docility and abounding in
cheerfulness, and ministering with alacrity, we shall not all be
the tongue which is the more active member, not all of us
apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret.
And again:
Why cost thou make thyself a shepherd when
thou art a sheep? Why become a head when thou art a foot? Why
cost thou try to be a commander when thou art enrolled in the
number of the soldiers?
The canon ends with the following words:
But if anyone be found weakening the present
canon, he is to be cut off for forty days.
The situation of the Church in Russia is
without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of
us separately. If the position of the Catacomb Church would
change relative to its position in past years, any change in our
attitude would have to be reviewed not by individual clergymen or
laymen but only by the Council of Bishops, to which all pertinent
matters should be submitted.
The above decision must be published and a copy
of it forwarded to the Secretariat of the Council while the
diocesan bishops should give instructions, each in his own
diocese, to the clerics who have too hastily voiced their
opinion.
+ + +
A Related Excerpt
Let us here make
clear several points, because the proponents of a
"liberal" Orthodox theology and ecclesiology have so
clouded the issue with their emotional arguments that it has
become very difficult to see things clearly and calmly as they
actually are.
Let it be said
first of all that those, whether in Russia or outside, who accuse
the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate not of any personal
sins, but of apostasy, do not in the least "curse" or
condemn the simple people who go to the open churches in the
Soviet Union, nor the conscientious priests who serve as well as
they can under the inhuman pressures exerted by the Communist
Government, nor even the betraying hierarchs themselves; people
who say this are, purely and simply, slandering the position of
the True-Orthodox Christians. While considering the clergy and
faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate as participants in apostasy
and schism, True-Orthodox Christians view them with sympathy and
love, but also speak the truth about them and refuse to
participate in their deeds or have communion in prayer and
sacraments with them, leaving their judgment to the future free
All-Russian Council, when and if God should grant that it might
be convened. In previous Councils like this in the history of the
Church, those most guilty for schism have been punished, while
the innocent followers of schism have been forgiven and restored
to communion with the Church (as indicated in the Epistle of St.
Athanasius the Great to Rufinianus).
Secondly,
True-Orthodox Christians do not at all regard the Moscow
Patriarchate simply as "fallen" and its followers as
equal to heretics or pagans. There are degrees of schism and
apostasy, and the fresher is the break with the true Church of
Christ, and the more it has been caused by outward rather than
inward causes—the greater is the possibility for the
eventual restoration of the fallen-away body to the Church.
True-Orthodox Christians, for the sake of the purity of Christ's
Church, must remain separate from the
schismatic body and thereby show it the way of return to the True
Church of Christ.
Solzhenitsyn
speaks, not with the voice of Christian truth, but only with the
voice of human common sense, when he writes in his Letter:
"The majority of people are not saints, but ordinary men.
Both faith and the Divine services are called to accompany their
usual life, and not to demand every time a super-heroic
act." Yes, it is true: True-Orthodox Christians today are the heroes of Orthodoxy in Russia, and the whole
history of Christ's Church is the history of the triumph of
Christ's heroes. "Ordinary" people follow the heroes,
not vice versa. The standard is heroism, not
"ordinary life." The confession of the True-Orthodox
Church is absolutely indispensable for the "ordinary"
Orthodox Christians of Russia today, if they hope to remain
Orthodox and not go further on the path of apostasy.
Finally, the True-Orthodox Church of Russia, as
far as we know, has made no official proclamation as to the
Grace, or lack of it, of the Sacraments of the Moscow
Patriarchate. Individual hierarchs of the Catacomb Church in the
past have expressed different opinions on this subject, some
actually allowing the reception of Holy Communion from a
Sergianist priest when in danger of death, and others insisting
on the new Baptism of those baptized by Sergianist clergy. This
question could be decided only by a Council of Bishops. If the
schism of the Moscow Patriarchate is only temporary, and if it
will eventually be restored to communion with the True-Orthodox
Church in a free Russia, then this question may never need to be
officially decided at all. Individual cases of True-Orthodox
Christians in Russia receiving or not receiving Holy Communion in
Sergianist churches do not, of course, establish any general rule
or decide the question. The strict rule of the Russian Church
Outside of Russia forbidding her members from receiving
Sacraments from clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate is not founded
on any statement that these Sacraments lack Grace, but rather on
the sacred testament of Metropolitan Anastassy and other great
hierarchs of the Diaspora forbidding any kind of communion with
the Patriarchate as long as its leaders betray the Faith and are
in submission to atheists.
From "The Catacomb
Tikhonite Church, 1974: First Public Information
in the West Concerning", by Metropolitan
Theodosius, Chief Hierarch of the
True-Orthodox Church of Russia (The Orthodox
Word, Nov.-Dec., 1974, 240-241).
|