Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by Justice »

Many True Orthodox synods regard Fr. Justin as a saint for his various writings on communism and papism, but I don't recall any declaration from him about him breaking communion with the World Orthodox. There is apparently a story where he broke communion with the World Orthodox before his death, but I don't know how much credibility this version has. Can anybody confirm this?

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by d9popov »

The short answer is that Father Justin Popovic appears to have stopped commemorating the Serbian Patriarch German in the late 1970s, but continued to commemorate his own local bishop, Jovan (Velimirovic) of Sabac and Valjevo. Father Justin hoped that the Serbian Patriarchate would correct the ecumenist errors of Patriarch German, who had been thrust upon the church uncanonically by the Yugoslav Communist party's secret police, known as the UDBA (similar to the KGB). (There are CIA/FBI/State Department documents on this that were exposed to the U.S. public via the Washington Post in the 1970s.) In addition to the reasons for caution mentioned in the essays below (Father Justin's horror at schism), he seems to have thought that breaking communion more fully might bring unnecessary persecution on his disciples who he hoped would correct the wayward course of the Serbian patriarchate. In some ways, he was cautious similarly to how Saint Tikhon of Moscow, Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kavourides, and Saint Philaret of New York were cautious. These five men may each have been (1) a saint; and (2) too cautious, at times. All four were persecuted and all four confessed the faith in the face of heresy and persecution. That is what counts and that is why true Orthodox Christians honor their memories. Historically in the Orthodox Church there have been differences of opinion --- unresolved over many centuries --- about whether certain figures were saints or not. These differences of opinion did not cause a break in communion (in past history) between Orthodox and these differences need not do so now. We should agree on dogma, not on every detail about every saint or person given local (but not universal) Orthodox veneration. Father Justin reposed in 1979 and was especially close with ROCOR. ROCOR anathematized ecumenism in 1983 and any intercommunion with ecumenists that remained should have been cut off at that time. It was not, except by the True Orthodox, and ROCOR went astray and the Serbian patriarchate went further astray. I could compile a longer answer at a future time. Father Justin may have been too cautious and too slow in severing communion, but he was clear in denouncing ecumenism. See the four essays below. See especially, if you have not already, Father Justin's vehement denunciation of the ecumenical movement and ecumenist prayers with the non-Orthodox (the fourth essay below).


Father Justin Popović wrote vehemently against the un-Orthodox teachings and practices
of Roman Catholics and Protestants. He said they were not true churches of Christ and did not
have the Holy Mysteries. He wrote vehemently against the ecumenical movement. He wrote
vehemently against the Orthodox who participated in the ecumenical movement, especially those
“Orthodox” who participated in common prayers with the non-Orthodox. Initially, some of his
“disciples”—such as Artemije Radosavljević (now an independent bishop), Irinej Bulović (now
Bishop of Novi Sad and Bačka), Amfilohije Radović (now Metropolitan of Montenegro), and
Atanasije Jevtić—seemingly supported his beliefs. Father Amfilohije Radović and Father
Atanasije Jevtić were the translators of Father Justin’s The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism
from Serbian into Greek. Father Irinej Bulović wrote the introduction to Father Justin’s
vehement letter of protest to the bishops of the Serbian patriarchate for the common prayer
services with the non-Orthodox. But this was before their great betrayal of their spiritual father.
Father Justin reposed in 1979, with the hope that Tito’s Communist dictatorship would
fall and that Father Justin’s “disciples” and others would return the Serbian Patriarchate to an
Orthodox direction after the fall of Communism. Tito died in 1980 and Communism weakened
even more after 1989, but these “disciples” did not return the patriarchate to an Orthodox
direction. Bishop Artemije attempted, weakly, to maintain Father Justin’s opposition to
ecumenism, and he was “deposed” by the Patriarchate. The other three “disciples,” Metropolitan
Amfilohije, Bishop Irinej Bulović, and Bishop Atanasije all betrayed their spiritual father by
participating in the ecumenical movement, even as it became more anti-Orthodox after Father
Justin’s repose in 1979. Serbian Patriarch Pavle wrote a public letter to the pope of Rome in
1991 recognizing the Roman Church as a “sister church” to the Orthodox Church and asking for
progress in the ecumenical dialogue towards greater unity. Bishops of the Serbian Patriarchate
(including some of these “disciples” of Father Justin) continue to participate in common prayers
with the non-Orthodox, as pictures on Serbian and other websites indicate. What the Serbian
Patriarchate did was to proclaim Father Justin a saint and, at the same time, they violated
everything he stood for in his opposition to the ecumenical movement, especially by their
continuing the common ecumenical prayers with the non-Orthodox that Father Justin wrote
would render the participants no longer Orthodox.
So people like Bishop Atanasije have some explaining to do. They reaped rewards to
their ecclesiastical careers from supposedly being “disciples” of Father Justin, but they chose to
betray everything he stood for in his opposition to ecumenism. This is the origin of the “spin” in
this recent book edited by Bishop Atanasije. Father Justin started out his book The Orthodox
Church and Ecumenism with some charitable thoughts about the Orthodox Church having the
answer to Christian unity that Roman Catholics and Protestants claimed to seek in the
ecumenical movement. Father Justin said this true Christian unity could be found in the
Orthodox Church, not in the ecumenical movement, which he said was based on the idolatrous
worship of sinful man and his sinful culture. However, when Father Justin was writing hand-
written notes two years before his book was published, he experimented with using the word
“ecumenism” in a positive sense as equivalent to the “sabornost” (Serbian), “sobornost” (Church
Slavonic), “catholicity,” or “universality” of the Orthodox Church. He did not say in his notes—
and he definitely did not say in his published book and letter—that “Orthodox” participation in
the ecumenical movement was a good thing. He condemned it, and yet, his “disciples” deepened
their participation in this movement that Father Justin thoroughly condemned.


In the early 1970s, Archimandrite Justin wrote to the Serbian bishops and stated that if they continued the common prayer services with the non-Orthodox, they would themselves cease to be Orthodox. Father Justin did have one difference from Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic. Father Justin was absolutely horrified with the prospect of schisms or breakages of communion within the “Orthodox world.” Father Justin was horrified by the split between the church in Yugoslav Macedonia and the Serbian church and he was horrified by the split in the Serbian church in the diaspora in 1963. Father Justin was from the southern part of Serbia proper, the area that bordered Macedonia, and he loved the Macedonian people, considering them his own people. But he had little sympathy for those Macedonians who desired an autonomous or autocephalous church. For him, any separation was horrifying. Father Justin also strongly reprimanded Patriarch German for how he had treated Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich in the U.S. Father Justin continued to recognize Bishop Dionisije, whom the patriarchate declared defrocked, and pushed for reconciliation. Thus, like Bishop Nikolaj, Father Justin strongly opposed both ecumenism/relativism and Communism/collaborationism. He opposed where “World Orthodoxy” was going. And he even defended groups (ROCOR, the Russian Metropolia, and the Free Serbs) whom “World Orthodoxy” denounced as schismatics. But Father Justin’s personal temperament was to be extremely cautious about breaking communion himself, in Serbia. Thus, in my opinion, he was too slow to sever communion with the Belgrade patriarch. But it may be inaccurate to say he was in “full communion” with the patriarch (as has been claimed), since it has been widely reported that he stopped liturgical commemoration of Patriarch German and only commemorated his local bishop, Jovan Velimirovic of Sabac-Valjevo, due to the patriarch’s ecumenism. This was a step toward separation, maybe too cautious, but it was a step. Father Justin weighed a more definitive break, but, because of his extreme caution and horror at schism, he did not follow through before his death in 1979.

Father Justin hoped and believed that after the eventual death of the Yugoslav dictator Josip Broz Tito, who strongly pushed Patriarch German into ecumenism (Tito also initiated the schisms in Macedonia and the diaspora), that Communism would collapse in Yugoslavia and that the Serbian church would cleanse itself of ecumenism, without a third schism in the Serbian church being necessary to accomplish the cleansing. Tito died a year later (in May 1980), but the Serbian patriarchate actually increased its ecumenical activities after the dictator’s death. Most sadly, the so-called disciples of Father Justin — Bishop Atanasije Jevtic of Herzegovina, Metropolitan Amfilohije Radovic of Montenegro, and Bishop Irinej Bulovic of Backa played a hypocritical double game. They reaped great rewards for their careers because of their past associations with the great theologian Justin Popovic, while at the same time they totally betrayed his teaching on ecumenism. Patriarch Pavle was no better, openly recognizing Rome as a “sister church.” Metropolitan Iriney Kovacevich of the Free Serbs completely betrayed his written and widely-published statements denouncing the new calendar, ecumenism, and collaborationist bishops, and he submitted to the ecumenist Patriarch Pavle who taught the “sister church” heresy. This was a precursor to ROCOR’s capitulation to Moscow, and the KGB, and ecumenism a decade and a half later.

In the greatest act of dishonesty, Patriarch Irinej proclaims Father Justin a Saint and then defrocks Bishop Artemije Radosavljevic of Raska-Prizren and Kosovo-Metohija who was attempting (weakly) to keep alive Father Justin’s teaching against ecumenism. Irinej then proceeded to expand Serbian ecumenism from interdenominational ecumenism to interreligious syncretism by participating in a non-Christian religious ritual. Bishop Artemije’s stance is equivocal, not firmly Orthodox, but the attacks he is subjected to by the patriarchate are vicious beyond description. But none of these hypocritical men can claim to be following in the footsteps of Bishop Nikolaj or Father Justin. Their denunciation of Western relativism are clear if one will only read them. And their writings now exist in many languages: Serbian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, English, French, German, Slovak, etc. Several texts are available online.


Controversies over the glorification and/or veneration (or not) of recent church figures should NOT be allowed to divide true Orthodox Christians. If some bishops consider, for example, Bishop Ignatius Bryanchaninov a saint and some bishops do not, that should not divide these bishops into rival synods. The Holy Fathers did not usually excommunicated one another over such issues! And disagreements have gone on for centuries. Is Symeon of Thessalonica a saint? What about Peter Mogila? I would probably say yes to the first one and no to the second one, but that would only be a personal guess on my part. The Church, and ultimately God, will make a final decision. The collections of canons refer to Theophilus of Alexandria, the persecutor of Saint John Chrysostom, as an "Hagios Pater" (Holy Father). Does this mean he was a saint or simply a bishop? The canons he wrote were accepted by the Church irrespective of whether "Holy Father" meant he was a saint or just a bishop. Every Orthodox bishop is called "Holy Master" during his lifetime. Any Orthodox priest can be called "Holy Father" during his lifetime, in the divine services, in letters, and in personal interactions: "Holy Father, bless." The word for "holy" and "saint" are the same word in Church Greek (Hagios) and Slavic (Sviati/Sveti). The Slavic word sviatitel/svetitel can mean either "bishop/hierarch" or "saint who happened to have the ecclesiastical rank or title of bishop/hierarch." Was Augustine of Hippo a saint or a heretic or something in between? The Church has allowed contradictions, uncertainties, and gray areas to persist for centuries without schism over such issues. Local venerations have persisted for centuries without approval or condemnation from "higher" authorities --- AND NO SCHISMS. We are obligated to follow that precedent. Thus we need to break definitively with the ecumenist heretics, but tolerate some differences of opinion among True Orthodox. Differences of opinion about Father Justin Popovic are an example of what can, should, and must be tolerated.


LETTER ON ECUMENISM BY ARCHIMANDRITE JUSTIN POPOVIĆ OF ĆELIJE
CONVENT, SUBMITTED TO BISHOP JOVAN VELIMIROVIĆ OF ŠABAC AND
VALJEVO AND TO THE HOLY HIERARCHICAL SYNOD OF THE SERBIAN
ORTHODOX CHURCH, BELGRADE, NOVEMBER 13/26, 1974

Most Reverend Fathers,

The stance of the Church of Christ in relation to heretics—to all who are not Orthodox—
was established once and for all time by the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, by Holy
Divine-Human Tradition, uniform and unchangeable.
In accordance with this stance, Orthodox are forbidden to participate in any form of
common prayer or liturgical services with heretics. For, “What fellowship has righteousness with
unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ
with Belial? Or what part has he who believes with an infidel?” (2 Corinthians 6:14–15).
The Forty-fifth Canon of the Holy Apostles decrees: “Let a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon,
who has merely prayed with heretics be excommunicated; but if he has permitted them to
perform any clerical function, let him be deposed.”
This sacred Canon of the Holy Apostles does not specify precisely what kind of prayer or
service is prohibited, but it does prohibit any common prayer with heretics, even in private (“has
prayed with...”). In the case of ecumenical joint prayers, do things not occur that are both more
explicit and on a broader scale than these?
The Thirty-second Canon of the Council of Laodicaea decrees: “It is unlawful to receive
the blessings of heretics, for they are absurdities rather than blessings.” And do heretics not give
blessings at those ecumenical gatherings and joint services?—Roman Catholic bishops and
priests, Protestant ministers, and even female clergy!
These and all of the other pertinent Canons of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers
were not valid only in the ancient period, but continue to be completely valid today, as well, for
all of us contemporary Orthodox Christians.
They are unconditionally binding in our stance toward Roman Catholics and Protestants.
For Roman Catholicism is a many-sided heresy and the heresies of Protestantism are too many to
mention.
Did not Saint Sava—already in his time, seven and half centuries ago—call Roman
Catholicism “the Latin heresy”? And how many new dogmas has the pope invented since then
and made them dogma with his “infallibility”?! It is absolutely certain that, through the dogma of
papal infallibility, Roman Catholicism has become a panheresy. Even the much-celebrated
Second Vatican Council did not change anything concerning this monstrous heresy, but, on the
contrary, it made it even firmer.
Therefore, if we Orthodox wish to remain Orthodox, it is our duty to maintain the stance
of Saint Sava, Saint Mark of Ephesus, Saint Cosmas of Aitolia, Saint John of Kronstadt, and the
other Holy Confessors, Martyrs, and New Martyrs of the Orthodox Church toward Roman
Catholics and Protestants, absolutely none of whom believe correctly and in an Orthodox manner
in the two fundamental doctrines of Christianity: in the Holy Trinity and in the Church.

II
Your Eminence and Holy Fathers of the Synod, How long will we continue desecrating
our Holy Orthodox Church of Saint Sava by our pitiful and horrifying stance, which directly
opposes Holy Tradition, towards ecumenism and the World Council of Churches?
Every true Orthodox Christian, who is instructed under the guidance of the Holy Fathers,
is overcome with shame when he reads that the Orthodox members of the Fifth Pan-Orthodox
Consultation in Geneva (July 8–16, 1968), with regard to the participation of Orthodox in the
work of the World Council of Churches, decided, at that time, “to express the common
recognition of the Orthodox Church that she is an organic member of the World Council of
Churches” (see Glasnik S. P. Crkve [Belgrade], no. 8 [1968]: 168).
This decision is apocalyptically horrifying in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy. Was
it necessary for the Orthodox Church, the most pure Divine-Human Body and organism of the
God-Man Christ, to be so debased to such a pitiful degree that its theological representatives,
some of whom were Serbian bishops, should seek after “organic” participation and membership
in the World Council of Churches, which will supposedly become a new “body” and a new
“Church” above all the churches, in which the Orthodox Church and the non-Orthodox churches
will appear only as parts—“organically” joined to each other? God forbid! Never before has
there been such a betrayal and abandonment of our holy Faith!
By this, we are renouncing the Orthodox Divine-Human Faith, this organic bond with the
Lord Jesus, the God-Man, and His most pure Body—we are repudiating the Orthodox Church of
the Holy Apostles, Fathers, and Ecumenical Councils—and we wish to become “organic
members” of a heretical, humanistic, man-made and man-worshipping assembly, which is
composed of 263 heresies, each one of which is spiritual death.
As Orthodox, we are “members of Christ.” “Shall I then take the members of Christ, and
make them the members of a harlot? God forbid!” (1 Corinthians 6:15). We are doing this by our
“organic” union with the World Council of Churches, which is nothing other than the revival of
atheistic man-worship and idolatry.
Most Reverend Fathers, our Orthodox Church of the Holy Fathers and Saint Sava, the
Church of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers, of the Holy Confessors, Martyrs, and New
Martyrs, must now, at the eleventh hour, cease ecclesiastical, Hierarchical, and liturgical
involvement with the so-called World Council of Churches and renounce for good any
participation whatsoever in joint prayers and worship (for worship, in the Orthodox Church, is
organically linked together in a totality and is consummated in the Divine Eucharist) and, in
general, [renounce for good] participation in any ecclesiastical endeavors which are not self-
contained and do not express the unique and unchangeable character of the One, Holy, Catholic,
and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church, forever one and unique.

III
If the Orthodox Church, faithful as she is in every respect to the Holy Apostles and the
Holy Fathers, were to avoid ecclesiastical involvement with heretics, be they those of Geneva or
those of Rome, she would not thereby be renouncing her Christian mission or her evangelical
obligation: that she should humbly, but boldly, bear witness before the contemporary world, both
non-Orthodox and non-Christian, to the Truth, to the All-Truth, to the living and true God-Man,
and to the all-saving and all-transfiguring power of Orthodoxy.
Guided by Christ, our Church, through the Patristic spirit and character of her
theologians, will always be ready “to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason for the
hope that is in us” (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).

And our Hope, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, and unto all eternity, is single
and unique: the God-Man Jesus Christ in His Divine-Human Body, the Church of the Holy
Apostles and the Fathers.
Orthodox theologians should participate not in “ecumenical joint prayers,” but in
theological dialogues in the Truth and about the Truth, as the Holy and God-bearing Fathers have
done throughout the ages.
The Truth of Orthodoxy and the right Faith is the “portion” only “of those who are being
saved” (cf. the Seventh Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council).
Wholly-true is the proclamation of the Holy Apostle: “salvation through sanctification ...
and belief in the Truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Belief in the God-Man is “belief in the Truth.”
The essence of this belief is the Truth, the only Whole-Truth, that is, the God-Man Christ. Love
for the God-Man is “love of the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). The essence of this love is the
Whole-Truth, that is, the God-Man Christ. And this belief and this love are the heart and
conscience of the Orthodox Church.
All of these things have been preserved intact and undistorted only in martyric, Patristic
Orthodoxy, to which Orthodox Christians are called to witness fearlessly before the West and its
false faith and false love.

Commemoration of Saint John Chrysostom
November 13/26, 1974
Holy Ćelije Monastery

The unworthy Archimandrite Justin
commends himself to the holy Apostolic
prayers of Your Eminence
and the holy Fathers and Hierarchs
of the Holy Synod

[PUBLICATION HISTORY: This letter was written by hand by Archimandrite Justin Popović,
the Spiritual Father of the Ćelije Covent near Valjevo, Serbia, Yugoslavia, on November 13/26,
1974, and transmitted to Bishop Jovan (Velimirović) of Šabac and Valjevo and, through him, to
the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Archimandrite Justin had been
specifically requested by Bishop Jovan and the Synod to submit his views. To our knowledge,
the letter was not published in Yugoslavia at that time due to Communist and pro-ecumenist
censorship. The letter was smuggled into Greece and published in Greek translation in the
Athens religious newspaper Orthodoxos Typos [Orthodox Press] in 1974. Major excerpts from
the letter, in English translation, were quoted in the book A Time to Choose (Grayslake: Free
Serbian Orthodox Diocese, 1981). The original Serbian text was posted at
http://svetosavlje.org/biblioteka/Knjig ... Sinodu.htm. The Serbian text in the Latin script was posted at
http://svetosavlje.org/biblioteka/Knjig ... stvoSvetom
Sinodu.htm. An English translation from the Greek was posted at
http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theolo ... opovic.pdf.]

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by Justice »

Thank you for your reply d9popov it has helped me progress on my spiritual journey. The church has allowed certainly for contradiction in its long history. I personally believe that the priests who disagree with the sainthood of a saint will be replaced with a priest with the opposite opinion.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by Barbara »

What an impressive piece of research, d9popov !
Yes please DO compile a longer explanation whenever you find the time. I learned a lot. I know almost nothing about the Serbian Patriarchate.

I am vastly surprised that Tito encouraged - or caused - the split in the US. Was this to splinter off the Free [anti-Communist] Serbian Church so the entire Serbian diaspora in the US would become weaker ? Do you happen to have any more information about this ? If not, don't worry. Just trying to understand the picture.
I could well imagine Tito provoking the Macedonian schism.

Then, was Fr Justin Popovich close to other Rocor hierarchs ? I do recall that he knew well then-Hieromonk John Maximovitch when the former was a professor at the Bitol theological seminary. The future Saint John was in fact the assistant of Fr Justin at this Seminary of St John the Theologian, a fact which hasn't been brought out much in studies of St John's Life.
Fr Justin is said to have displayed a photo of the future Abp of Shanghai and San Francisco in his room for receiving guests.

So when you say that Fr Justin was close to Rocor, I assume this means to individual hierarchs or clergy ? Are there any other stories of his interactions with them ? Even the one about St John Maximovitch is a bit sketchy. One wants to hear MUCH more detail.

Or did you mean that Fr Justin was a sympathizer with Rocor's ecclesiology ?

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by d9popov »

Thank you so much for your kind words, Barbara.

At first, I don't think that Tito thought he could split the Serbs in the Free World into two churches. His goal was different. He wanted to destroy the vocally anti-Communist bishop of the diaspora Serbs, Bishop Dionisije Milivojevich. Bishop Dionisije continued (to his death) to speak out against Communism as Serbian bishops had done previously, until the Communist takeover of Serbia in October 1944. Tito's UDBA (=KGB) attempted to discredit Bishop Dionisije, and the motive was to destroy an unspoken Christian anti-Communist. Scholars are unanimous that Tito had assassins in Western Europe and North America who murdered both Croats and Serbs who were anti-Communist. Some people believe that Saint Nikolaj Velimirovich was murdered (through poison) by an assassin in 1956, just after he had been appointed to head Saint Tikhon's Seminary, but before he officially took office. (He also had ties to Jordanville, as ROCOR and traditional elements in the Metropolia were closer to each other at that time.) Saint Nikolaj was equal to Bishop Dionisije in his Christian anti-Communism; and if he had taken office at Saint Tikhon's that would have been seen as a blow to the Yugoslav Communist regime's battle for worldly prestige. Unfortunately, the public evidence on Saint Nikolaj's repose/maryrdom is murky. The massive propaganda campaign against Bishop Dionisije, on the other hand, was well known and was discussed by the Washington Post, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the persons involved in the propaganda campaign against Bishop Dionisije, in 1963, reemerged into the U.S. media much later, in the late 1980s or early 1990s, as a defender of Slobodan Milosevic. If she was not a Yugoslav secret-police asset, she surely acted like one. (In between, she was a U.S. college professor.)

Saint Nikolaj Velimirovich and Saint Justin Popovich were very close to the ROCOR clergy in Yugoslavia from 1921 to 1944. Later, both saints defended ROCOR (and the Russian American Metropolia) from Moscow Patriarchate propaganda. Bishop Nikolaj was sympathetic to a "Free" Church in America not under a Communist-dominated hierarchy abroad. Father Justin defended the Free Serbs against attacks from the Belgrade regime and Belgrade patriarchate. I believe that ROCOR's Bishop Mark of Berlin administered Holy Unction to Saint Justin before his repose in 1979 (although I do not believe that Saint Justin would have approved of Bishop Mark's later actions). Yes, this whole history deserves to be compiled and shared better for the next generation of Orthodox Christians. There are three related (mostly political) areas that have received a lot of attention from scholars in recent decades (1) the murderous hatred of Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky towards the Orthodox Church and (2) the murderous hatred of the Croatian fascist leader Ante Pavelic towards the Orthodox Church -- a hatred that also produced many new martyrs; and (3) the murderous (Stalinist) nature of the early Tito regime. Tito's thugs murdered Metropolitan Joanikije (Lipovac) of Cetinje and all Montengro and most of his priests five weeks after the fighting had ended. Metropolitan Joanikije had attempted to shield his flock from Italians, Germans, and Communists, but the Communists murdered him because he did not support them. Metropolitan Anastasii of Blessed Memory and the ROCOR clergy with him were forced to flee Sremski-Karlovci and Belgrade as the Communist-led forces (Stalin's from the East [Romania] and Tito's from the West [Bosnia]) were about the invade Serbia in the autumn of 1944. Unfortunately, there is no one book that covers the Orthodox martyrs, the surviving and confessing hierarchs, and the political-historical background in a detailed way. And the relationship between ROCOR (and the Metropolia) and various Serbs also deserves a book devoted to it. The Serbs and the ROCOR faithful in Yugoslavia during the Second World War were caught in an internal Yugoslav Civil War that had over 23 rival millitaries fighting in the civil war. Metropolitan Anastasii of Blessed Memory had to navigate his Church and flock through the repression, the chaos, and the violence.

The "Macedonian question" also deserves an Orthodox analysis that is free from ethnic bias. Saint John Maximovitch, Saint Nikolaj Velimirovich, and Saint Justin Popovich did interact in Yugoslav Macedonia, including the Seminary in Bitola/Bitolj. Tito absolutely did exploit the Macedonian question to serve his lust for power and his Communist goals.

Despite their human imperfections (as children of fallen Adam), Saint Tikhon (Belavin) of Moscow, Saint Chrysostom (Kavourides) of Florina, Saint Nikolaj (Velimirovic) of Zhicha, Saint Justin (Popovic) of Chelije, and Saint Philaret (Voznesenskii) of New York and several ROCOR hierarchs --- and, I would add, Archbishop Auxentios of Athens, of Blessed Memory --- confessed traditional Orthodox Christianity in an era of massive apostasy from Orthodoxy and the persecution and murder of millions of Orthodox Christians. All traditional Orthodox lands: the Holy Land, Asia Minor, and Eastern Europe experienced massive persecutions in the twentieth century from Islam, Communism, and Nazism/Fascism. Sadly, liberal, morally-relativist ecumenism and secularism have also detached millions of people from the Orthodox faith of their ancestors. If we remember the histories and struggles of our ancestors in the faith, it will strengthen us and the next generation to persevere in the Orthodox faith and way of life.

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by Justice »

Didn't St. Nikolaj have good relations with the Anglicans? was he an ecumenist before his close ties with the ROCOR?

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Fr. Justin Popovich and World Orthodoxy

Post by Barbara »

That is marvelous what you wrote, d9popov.

I have some questions, but 1st let me say that Tito WOULD NEVER HAVE come to power had it not been for the British - yes, perfidious Albion struck again here. I plan to write more background for the ecclesiastical problems of Tito's distasteful dictatorship. For the moment, this image sums up quite a bit :

Image
Royal Air Force Halifax bomber of 148 Squadron, loaded with parachute canisters containing supplies for the Yugoslav Partisans (1944–1945)
Note : the Partisans, an innocent-sounding name connoting a national resistance to the Germans in WW2, were actually hard-core Communists and their leader Tito indoctrinated by Bolsheviks from WW1 onwards, thereafter run completely by the Soviet Union. And the British essentially raised this Stalin-copy-cat into such a strong position that he seized power as soon as the war ended. [ Fine monarchists they were, as Whitehall dropped the Royalists and the exiled government of King Peter II right there in London to boost up this evil bandit who would do incalculable damage over the next nearly half century ].

Post Reply