Alexey II says all evil forces are against MP-ROCOR union

[Kollyvas]

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/

ON THE COMMON STRUGGLE OF THE WHOLE RUSSIAN CHURCH

Christ is Risen!

Truth is sprung out of the earth, and righteousness hath looked down from heaven.

Psalm 84, 13

As the twenty-first century moves forward, we begin to gain some understanding of the spiritual significance of the twentieth century. This was an age dominated by spiritual decadence, that is spiritual disease, affecting the whole human spirit, body, mind and soul - politics, society and religion. Only this can explain the tragedies of two World Wars in the first half of the twentieth century. Only this can explain the extraordinary loss of spiritual and moral values in the Western world in the second half of the twentieth century.

In the Orthodox world, the situation was no different. Only spiritual decadence can explain the tragedy of the Russian Revolution and the savage martyrdom of millions of Orthodox. Only spiritual decadence can explain Communist Party-appointed Orthodox bishops inside Russia denying even the existence of the greatest persecution of the Church in world history. Only spiritual decadence can explain Orthodox bishops outside Russia becoming freemasons and openly proclaiming to Non-Orthodox that the Orthodox Faith itself is of little account and needs to be ‘reformed’.

Whether in Communist Eastern Europe, or elsewhere in the Orthodox world, including in the diaspora, Orthodox monks worthy of the episcopate were ignored. Zealous married clergy and laity were punished for their piety. The fact that many Orthodox ‘leaders’ lived lives of dubious morality is not of importance. Private morality is the affair of consciences and the Last Judgement. However, the fact that many of them openly proclaimed their hostility to monastic life, privately denied the dogmas of the Church and the existence of saints, and persecuted the faithful, is of importance. The public governance of the Church is the affair of all, here and now.

However, periods of persecution of the Church are always followed by periods of renewal. Renewal is guaranteed not only by the sacrifices of the Martyrs, but also by those of the Confessors. Thus, many often refer only to ‘the New Martyrs’, forgetting that twenty-five years ago, at the vital turning-point of 1981, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), mocked, slandered and isolated, heroically glorified not only the New Martyrs, but also the New Confessors (itself an act worthy of the New Confessors). For if the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, then the sweat and tears of the Confessors bring the Church into flower.

In Russia, the Church was not only physically persecuted, but also spiritually persecuted. The Martyrs witnessed with blood, but the Confessors witnessed with sweat and tears. Whereas the Martyrs struggled mainly against the militant atheism of Communism, the Confessors struggled mainly against the militant modernism of Renovationism. In the twentieth century, this struggle took place not only inside Russia, but also outside Russia. Therefore, the struggle of the Confessors has been, and is, the common struggle of the whole Russian Church.

Thus, when St Jonah of Manchuria (+ 1925), Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky (+ 1936), Archbishop Seraphim in Sophia (+ 1950), Archbishop Vitaly (+ 1960), Metropolian Anastasius (+ 1965), St John of Shanghai (+ 1966), Archbishop Averky of Syracuse (+ 1976) and so many other clergy and laity of ROCOR fought against modernism and ecumenism, speaking out openly against the heterodox practices widely adopted by other Orthodox jurisdictions, ROCOR was completely at one with the Confessors of the Patriarchate in Russia. Whether it was such holy men as St Alexis of Carpatho-Russia (+ 1947), Schema-Archimandrite Laurence of Chernigov (1950), St Sebastian of Karaganda (+ 1966), the Blessed Elder Sampson (+ 1979), Schema-Abbot Sabbas of the Pskov Caves (+ 1980), Archimandrite Seraphim of Belgorod (+ 1982), Schema-Metropolitan Zinovy (+ 1985), Schema-Archimandrite Vitaly (+ 1992), Schema-Archimandrite Zosima (+ 2002), there was no difference of view with the Confessors of ROCOR as regards the purity of the Faith.

Inside Russia, they vigorously opposed the ‘Living Church’, the death-bearing modernism and ecumenism, which wanted to destroy the Orthodox Tradition for its own dark purposes. Outside Russia, it was exactly the same. In other words, the struggle against Renovationism, modernism and ecumenism, that is secularism, that is spiritual impurity, is the common struggle of both parts of the Russian Church. Purity of faith is the common struggle to keep both the letter and the spirit. This means struggling both against the temptations of the left (Renovationism), and also against the temptations of the right (sectarianism).

Since the 1990s, both parts of the Russian Church have begun canonizing yet uncanonized Confessors, whether, for example, St John of Shanghai in 1994, St Jonah of Manchuria in 1996 or St Sebastian of Karaganda in 1997. In so doing, both parts of the Russian Church are deliberately opposing the ethos of Renovationism and, inasmuch as that, they are opposing the ethos of spiritual impurity which dominated the twentieth century. After the stunned silence of the twentieth century, the Russian Church is awakening to its messianic mission in the Orthodox and the Non-Orthodox world.

In the twentieth century, one of the main tasks of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was to witness to the Orthodox Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in the West. The time may yet come when the persecution of Orthodox in the West will be such that one of the tasks of the Russian Orthodox Church Inside Russia will be to witness to the Orthodox Martyrs and Confessors of the West in Russia. The Lord may be calling us to a new age of Martyrdom in the West and a new age of Confessordom in the East. However, even if the twenty-first century roles of Orthodoxy in Russia and the West are to be inverted from their twentieth-century roles, the Church will go on to the end of time. We too go on and pray for a celebration of spiritual truth, of the Orthodox Faith, a triumph of Orthodoxy within the Russian Church, both outside and inside Russia.

Fr Andrew

Bright Wednesday, 2006

[Kollyvas]

Christ is Risen!
I introduce this interchange here to call attention to a vision I wholeheartedly endorse. At the outset, I will say that I prefer and favour the OCA administration to ROCOR and am loyal to +Metropolitan Herman in the framework of an administration which should be loyal to the MP. I LOVE the idea of a restored Russian American (Diasporan) mission and see it as the way for the future. Of course, I would insist on a certain degree of independence for the American administration, but I think as you read the interchange it will become interestingly clear who the forces are who oppose it: ecumenists, renovationists, new calendarists--the scourge which has brought the OCA low. Think about why. Deduce what they fear by MP-ROCOR union. It isn't a danger to the OCA, but its MISSIONARY REALIZATION, its fulfillment. I say: IT IS THE MORNING OF ORTHODOXY IN AMERICA THEY WOULD TRY TO PREVENT. Let not forces on the right fall to the temptation of making common cause with them.
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

https://listserv.indiana.edu/

Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 15:14:41 -0700
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
From: Timothy Connelly <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: American Patriarchate?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Christ is risen!

Indeed He is Risen!

At 1925 hours on Sunday, 30 April 2006, Timothy
Connelly wrote:

I would like to say here that I did not intend to post
my comments when I did. I wrote a rough draft (not
even using "spell-check") and meant to click "save to
draft". Being severely sleep-deprived at the time I
clicked "send" by mistake. Oops!

"How long can the OCA (Orthodox Church in America)
canonically justify its
autocephaly" in the face of an impending merger of
some sort (absorption or
autonomy?) between the Orthodox Church of Russia
(Moscow Patriarchate) and
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia?

The Orthodox Church in America will have to justify
nothing, for it did not
declare or assume autocephaly on its own, but was
given it in 1970 by the
Orthodox Church of Russia (Moscow Patriarchate),
whose North American
missionary diocese the Orthodox Church in America
originally was.

There is much evidence that the MP granted the
Autocephaly to the OCA not freely but under Communist
pressure (to further divide the anti-Communist Russian
exile community). Do I have proof of this? No. But
It is often expressed as fact in both ROCA and OCA
circles. Perhaps others here can present some factual
evidence?

Also: Never before in the history of the Church and
Her discipline has autocephaly been granted to a
faction of the Orthodox Church on any given
territory. Canonically speaking the divisions within
American Orthodoxy should be / have been solved first
before any granting of autocephaly. This
"cart-before-the-horse" tactic is bizarre and lends
further credence to the "Communist Plot" theory of the
OCA's autocephaly.

It will be up to the Orthodox Church of Russia
(Moscow Patriarchate) to
justify why it is not respecting the autocephaly it
gave its daughter, the
Orthodox Church in America, in 1970, if it decides
to claim some sort of
canonical jurisdiction in North America through a
merger with the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

That may be forthcoming: The MP of today most
certainly is NOT the MP of 1970 (else the ROCA would
not be engaging it in dialog). It will be interesting
to see what comes of all of this.

The Orthodox Church of Russia exhibits some
disturbing two-facedness at
times nowadays. It cries foul when another
autocephalous church interlopes
on its canonical territory (for example, the
Orthodox Church of
Constantinople's parallel diocese in Estonia or
interference in Ukraine),
but feels free to set up parishes on the canonical
territory of other
autocephalous churches (for example, its
Johannesburg, South Africa parish,
a city which is on the Orthodox Church of
Alexandria's canonical territory)
simply because "Russians are there."

One Church can set up a "podvorye" on another Church's
territory with the Local Church's blessing. Did the
Church of Moscow not get this blessing? (Also Moscow
Patriarchate is the correct name; "Church of Russia"
would seem to mean the Church of Great Russia, proper
and, of course, the MP covers all the other "Russias",
too along with many non-Russian territories such as
Kazakhstan and Lithuania, etc).

This
expansionism -- "ministering to
Russians wherever they be found" -- seems to
parallel the Putin
administration's claim that the Russian Federation
must "protect Russian
speakers wherever they be found" in the wake of the
Soviet Union's breakup.

That may be. But I am more inclined to feel that
there is a waning of support in a free MP for the
OCA's autocephaly. Otherwise why is there not an
"intrusion" by the MP into, say, the Orthodox Church
of Slovakia where the Orthodox Russophile minority is
being persecuted? The same could perhaps be said for
Poland and Buchovina. Yet the MP, which gave them
autocephaly just like it did the OCA, makes no "moves"
on them.

Is the heresy of phyletism, or the ethnic,
linguistic and political
revanchism and irredentism of the world, to be
allowed to wreak havoc with
our Orthodox Christian ecclesiology again?

I do not see "Moscow heresy" or "phyletism" here. Few
Jurisdictions have been as welcoming to converts as
the ROCA & MP. I think the problem is the failure of
the OCA to bring about the much desired unity here in
North America --which was, after all a cornerstone of
the autocephaly. Such events as the (sometimes
violent) forcing of the New Calendar proved to be far
more divisive than unifying. The liturgical hijinks I
referred to is also a serious issue as is the
"fundamentalist ecumenism" festering in some quarters.
Then there is the growing mega-scandal under
Metropolitan Herman's administration that is causing a
sorrowful implosion in the OCA right now.

I am NOT an enemy of the OCA. It is to be lauded for
struggling to put down American roots and for
placing the US and Canadian people first and foremost
in the Church's mission. I wish it all the best! But
there are serious issues that MUST be dealt with in
today's OCA (as well as the ROCA and MP).

My PERSONAL desire would be to see a rescinding of
the failed autocephaly and the (re-)establishment of
one North American Russian (MP+ROCA+OCA) Jurisdiction
here. A Jurisdiction founded to primarily serve
Orthodox Americans and then Orthodox Russians, too. A
Jurisdiction based on the Church's age-old discipline
and Typicon with no pandering to this-or-that
heterodox theological fashion trend. A Jurisdiction
that would seriously work to end Orthodox division
here (and have the necessary support and backing to do
so!). I wish to stress that this is my personal
opinion and desire. Otherwise I follow my hierarch's
decisions and remain faithful to the traditional
discipline of the Orthodox Church. May God's blessing
descend upon our Churches upcoming deliberations in
San Francisco. And may we all be blessed by them!

Best wishes
Tim

[尼古拉前执事]

Christ is Risen!
I introduce this interchange here to call attention to a vision I wholeheartedly endorse. At the outset, I will say that I prefer and favour the OCA administration to ROCOR and am loyal to +Metropolitan Herman in the framework of an administration which should be loyal to the MP.

Truly He is Risen!

Rostislav,

One has to wonder, does this have anything to do with your well publicized ouster and banning from Jordanville? If so, would you perhaps like to share your side of the story since many former and current ROCOR members have only heard the official excommunication story from Holy Trinity Monastery.

[Kollyvas]

Christ is Risen!

Evlogeite Pater.
Is this from Puhalo? LOL! Yes, I was asked to leave Jordanville. Do you want to know why? Something not so well publicized (where are these things publicized)? The reason why animosity arose between myself and then +Archbishop Laurus was because I had "dared" to defy "their" (he uses the imperial pronoun) will and informed +Metropolitan Vitaly of the drunken carousing of then Igumen Peter (Lukianoff) and his empowering of soviet thugs to bully and do violence to other seminarians. I even heard with my own ears how then Igumen Peter busted in to a seminarian's cell, Denis Shibaev, and demanded, "Snimai shtany," "TAKE OFF YOUR PANTS." I wrote +Metropolitan Vitaly about these things, and my voice was not alone in these types of accounts. (It was common place to hear jokingly in ROCOR, in and around Jordanville especially, at the time, "I IZBAVI NAS OT LUKIANOVA," ie "and deliver us from Lukianov.") I was simply naive enough to make my concerns known to the Archbishop before writing, and +Metropolitan Vitaly indicated that he had received my correspondence to the Archbishop. Subsequently +Metropolitan Laurus made the said Hieromonk a Bishop after +Vitaly had been "retired." In other words, +Metropolitan Laurus asked me to leave because I informed the Metropolitan of the misdeeds going on in Jordanville, for the corruption was so rank that it stifled legitimate studies and made life there impossible. Yes, +Metropolitan Laurus did inform me through Fr. George (Schaeffer) that I could not go to Communion at the monastery for disobeying him (in such instances of immorality and corruption, the Canons call for the disobeying of lawless obediences; moreover, I respectfully notified the First Hierarch and did nothing wrong in doing so.), but there WAS NEVER any "excommunication." Moreover, excommunication is a serious penalty, Father, one which entails a spiritual court to effectuate--I have never been called to a spiritual court by ROCOR or anyone else but would gladly go to answer ANY "charges" against me which would be worthy of excommunication. (But if such a summary judgement exists, my parish Priest should know about it and I really should be made aware that I'm an excommunicant. Would you happen to have a copy?! LOL!) Reporting to my then First Hierarch IMMORAL activity in one of his monasteries does not qualify one for excommunication, Father. But let's go one further: I RECONCILED and accepted the "blame" for my "scandals" as advised by Elder Ephraim. And I last received Communion in ROCOR from the hands of +Archbishop Antony of San Francisco, of blessed memory!, 1999, who had blessed me to go to St. Antony's and structure my life around it. Excommunicated I was not, and, really, a translation of mine was published in Orthodox Life in 2002 "On The Miracles Occuring At The Uncovering Of The Holy Relics Of St. Seraphim Of Sarov." In ORTHODOX LIFE: Fr. Luke was enthusiastic in receiving it and has expressed interests in other translations which I have as yet to release. (BUT I BET THEY PUBLISH ME AGAIN--LOL!) Now, Father, spreading half truths and gossip is unworthy of the clergy. Finally, I left ROCOR when I saw the unscrupulousness of the +Laurus' administration and the people he was appointing to positions of prominence; I also didn't care for the interference and gossip I had to endure from former and current ROCOR pastors in Phoenix who were unaware of my blessings but all too willing to condemn something they knew nothing about. Please don't fall into the same pitfalls, Father.
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
And I would really like to know where slander of me has become so public? I never thought I was worthy of a disinformation campaign. LOL! And, oh, I'm sure you can tell me where accusations hurled against me have come from so "accurately." Surely, there is more substantiation here than rumor and innuendo.

[尼古拉前执事]

My apologies, this should have been a PM, please let me know if you prefer I delete this and I will!

[Kollyvas]

Christ Is Risen!

Evlogeite Pater.
I don't think this should be deleted. I want it to go public, and I thank you for expressing your friendship by being brutally honest. I have no secrets. I will answer any questions regarding this and ANY OTHER EPISODE which transpired while I was in ROCOR. (Just in case anything else needs to be expressed: we attend an Antiochian mission due to its proximity to our home but keep the Feasts on the Old Calendar in the Serbian church.) Now, I would like to know who is spreading lies and half-truthes about me and I would appreciate that you PM me with that information, Father. You see, I am well-aware of the inner workings of ROCOR and have no qualms with defending myself or EXPOSING TRUE unscrupulousness or impostures. Transparency is most excellent, and I am prepared to be honest in EVERYTHING. But let us now get back on topic.
Indeed He Is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
Now it should be clear and without wonder why I have left the unscrupulousness and corruption of the Laurus' administration and why this "new" ROCOR, in my personal experience, is no bastion of anything but scandal, gossip and decadence. My words of support for +Metropolitan Herman then are now OFFERED WITH FORCE.

[Kollyvas]

Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 23:55:52 -0700
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
From: Timothy Connelly <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: American Patriarchate?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Dear Gregory;

Indeed He is Risen!

The "motivations, speculations and conspiracy
theories" appear to be more and more coming to the
fore. Your personal concerns about the Moscow
Patriarchate vis-a-vis the OCA can been seen as a
demonstration of that.

Once again: The Moscow Patriarchate of the 1970's was
--according to its own admission-- a compromised tool
of the Soviet regime. This is no longer the case and
many past actions will be reconsidered. It is not
necessarily "speculation" to consider a re-evaluation
of the OCA's autocephaly one of those issues. Again,
who has ever heard of a faction of the Church on one
territory gaining singular autocephaly? Especially
when the other Churches present dispute, oppose and
reject such an act? Is that an example of "brethren
in good and pleasant unity"?

The establishment of ONE Russian Orthodox parish (how
big?) on South African soil --let's presume (that's
all we can do!) that it is not a podvorye but an
interlope-- is nothing compared to Constantinople's
neo-papist claims and crude intrusions into whole
Exarchates of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Ministering
to the spiritual needs of Russian, Byelo-Russian,
Ukrainian, Rusin and whatever ethnic Orthodox abroad
by the Patriarchate of Moscow is not, of itself a
"bad" thing. Especially when other Local Churches
can't. And the one instance you cite as a breech of
canonical practice is quite teeny. At least when
compared to Istanbul's activities, as has been pointed
out.

The Moscow Patriarchate has the right to rescind the
autocephaly once granted to the OCA. Especially if
she does so in agreement with the rest of the Local
Churches. The possible "failure" of the OCA's
autocephaly does not mean the OCA itself is a failure.
(And, BTW I never called the OCA "moribund". Please
do not misrepresent my opinion!). If you remember the
OCA's autocephaly was to serve as a "base" for the
unification of all Orthodox in North America. Each of
the Local Churches here were to unite with (not under)
the OCA and form, in due time, a true Local American
Church. Has this been a success or failure? Has there
even been one such event in over thirty years? Even
the collapsed 1990's SCOBA talks on an American Church
considered the OCA as a "Russian faction" as opposed
to THE Local American Church.

There are many areas where the Mother has a right to
be concerned with her Daughter. Again, the liturgical
hijinks, over-the-top ecumenism (in some quarters) and
the foisted Calendar change come to mind. These three
topics always come to the fore when I have
personally witnessed discussions between deans and
even Bishops of the MP or ROCA. And the deans and
hierarchs raised the issues... not me! And I am not
claiming "special position or knowledge" here. Any
Orthodox Christian can be invited to a priest's house
for refreshments with visiting clergy or bishops. I
am sure you have!

Never-the-less, in many places (thank God!) the OCA
thrives in obedience to the canons, discipline and
Tradition of the Holy Orthodox Church. You, as a
loyal son of that Church, have often shown this in
your own posts here.

I would like to remark, however, that the comment
about Metropolitan Vitaly's schism was, I feel,
beneath you. And there is a big difference between
perhaps one hundred insubordinate and isolationist
people leaving the ROCA and the profound ethical
issues shaking the OCA right now.

I am also nonplussed by your insistence in using the
rather Anglican term "Church of Russia". You are
usually very strict about correct terminology. Can
you point me to an Orthodox website of the Moscow
Patriarchate that calls the MP "the Church of Russia"?
To my understanding this is almost a term of
disparagement.

I wish to point out to our Listserv Readers that my
original post touched on the OCA only tangentially.
This "further development" of debating the OCA is
Gregory's issue, not mine. The OCA has not affected
my life much at all. I was never a member of that
Jurisdiction. Only its well-wisher.

I am NOT an "enemy" of the OCA, Gregory. But after
thirty-six years of non-recognition and confusion
there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with hoping for,
even calling for, a re-examination of the autocephaly
issue. And knowing you as I do, I know you, like me,
will be obedient to whatever our respective Churches
decide.

Best wishes
Tim