This editorial — written thirty-six years ago — eloquently refutes those, like Fr.John Shaw, who would now have us believe that this strict ecclesiological stance in regard to the Moscow Patriarchate had been foisted upon the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her over-zealous converts or by "the Greeks" — who at that time were not yet even members of the Church Abroad.
In 1964 all our Bishops of ROCOR were overzealous.
This was the ecclesiology of the Church Abroad before Metr.Laurus became first hierarch. The unionists want us to believe otherwise.
PA
An Editorial in "Pravoslavnaya Rus" from 1964
(Pravoslavnaya Rus, No. 21, 1964, p. 8)
Statement of Fact (1)
The glorification of Father John [of Kronstadt] was clouded by the report in the press concerning the letter of explanation circulated to the parishes on the part of the Bishops’ Sobor of the American Metropolia regarding the supposedly canonical incorrectness of the glorification. As has now become clear, what happened was something even more serious: in the San Francisco newspaper Russkaya Zhizn was printed the "Encyclical of the Greater Sobor of Bishops"— a more detailed document than that which had appeared in the press earlier. In this encyclical there is manifested even more graphically that crafty falsehood which constitutes the true contents of this protest against the glorification of Fr. John: the identifying of the Russian Orthodox Church with the so-called Soviet church(2), to which are ascribed the characteristics of the Genuine Russian Church — the "Tikhonite" Church — which has been forced at present to hide in the catacombs. The Church found in the Diaspora is declared to "not be carrying the Cross of the Russian Church", whereas the present official church is declared to be "bound" and undergoing "persecution and strangulation". This church has now been given "a time for repentance, prayer and fasting, a great hope on the Lord of Hosts, and an expectation of the time when her lips will be loosened, and when, by her free proclamation of her glad tidings, the Russian Church will glorify her righteous ones which have been glorified in heaven by God." Until then, not even a Local Orthodox Church, such as the American Metropolia considers itself to be, may carry out glorifications— much less the Church Abroad, that "temporary ecclesiastical body which did not even exist during the earthly life of Fr. John of Kronstadt".
The foregoing statement — no matter which word of it one considers — is all a crafty lie. No such Local Church — of which the American Metropolia is [supposedly] the image — exists, but what is it really? It is not the "bound, persecuted and strangled" genuine Russian Church "in repentance and fasting, awaiting its liberation", but it is an ecclesiastical organization controlled by the Soviet authorities which presents itself as the Russian Church to the eyes of the Free World, and which carries out the mission of the Soviet regime to instill in the entire Free World the idea that this is the genuine Russian Church, which in unbroken succession is continuing its life in contemporary Russia. The Metropolia is found in communion with this so-called Soviet church— administratively she is not subordinate to it, but associates herself with it, as with a genuine Church which is only temporarily undergoing adversities, and is awaiting, together with her, that time when the Soviet regime will soften, just as the Free World also places its hopes on this.
This is one reality — grievous and shameful. But another one also exists. The Genuine Church, the Tikhonite Church, had to depart into the underground after the "Sergianist" agreement with the Soviet regime, and she exists there to this very day, and of late is increasing all the more — such that even Soviet printed sources now abound in citations concerning the "sectarians" who call themselves members of the True Orthodox Church.
As for the Diaspora, there has remained here a branch of our genuine Local Church (which in Russia is presently found in the underground), representing her in unbroken succession and, consequently, reaching back not only to the time when Fr. John of Kronstadt was alive, but to every preceding age, right to the Upper Room on Sion(3).
To vest in the garb of the suffering and persecuted Church that Soviet hierarchy which at present, outside the bounds of Russia, is so obviously doing the will of the Soviet satanocracy — this is a blasphemy which is unthinkable, and which falls with full force on those who signed this appeal, the sole purpose of which is to weaken the activity of the grace of God, as personified in Fr. John. As for the satanocracy itself, it, of course, employing the services of the so-called Soviet Church, continues its work of destroying any sort of church consciousness whatsoever, turning it even against any local centers of churchliness within that very Soviet church, whither by necessity the believing people resort. In this, its fate, the Soviet clergy is experiencing something analogous to that which in the first days of Christianity was called "baptism by blood". We can only pray God that He receive as "lawful" this martyrdom, these evil afflictions; but to place the halo of martyrdom upon those hierarchs who, amidst every sort of honor and prosperity, openly and successfully carry out the evil work of putting an ecclesiastical façade on the Soviet satanocracy — this constitutes that great blasphemy.
But there is another aspect to this question. The entire argumentation of the Metropolia against the glorification of Fr. John rests, it would seem, on their acknowledging themselves to be a "part" of the Russian Church, which, as such, takes an ardent concern in the matter of the canonization of Fr. John. But immediately thereupon, having stated that only a "Local Church" may conduct a canonization, the Metropolia calls itself the "American Local Church", and draws therefrom this incomprehensible conclusion that neither she, nor "much less" the Russian Church Abroad, can have the right to canonize. From whence is this "much less"? If the Metropolia considers herself the American Local Church, then it is quite understandable that she should express a point of view characteristic of the Free World, namely, that there can be no talk of overthrowing the Communists, but only of how to reach an understanding with them. But what has that got to do with us? Why are we, who are found to be spiritually of one mind with the inner, essential Russia (which is presently silent), forbidden to act, proceeding from our Orthodox Russian convictions, and not from American ones? Thus, the interference of the Metropolia in the matter of the glorification of Fr. John now stands out in a new, exceedingly gloomy, light. She, as it were, is saying to Russians: "Turn away from the Church Abroad which considers itself to be Russian and which, in its aspirations to liberate Russia from the Communists, dared to turn with prayerful cries to Fr. John — to him who is known to all Russia as a holy Righteous One and Wonder-worker — at what may be the last moment when the liberation of Russia is still possible! We shall wait, soothing ourselves with false self-assurances that the present official church by its own repentance and prayers will bring about a time when it will be possible to officially glorify Fr. John."
Is not this the extreme limit of spiritual desolation? In contrast, behold with what great spiritual ascents do Russians who have remained Russians — whatever jurisdiction they may belong to — now turn prayerfully to the aid of the holy and righteous Fr. John.
(1) This editorial was written by Archimandrite Constantine Zaitsev (1887-1975), spiritual father of the brotherhood of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, N. Y., instructor at the seminary there, and editor of Pravoslavnaya Rus and Orthodox Life. In the obituary which appeared in Orthodox Life in 1975 (Vol. 25, No. 6, p. 3), the editors declared: "In his teachings and writings, Fr. Constantine showed himself an uncompromising zealot for the Orthodox Faith and the Russian Church Abroad."
(2) In this translation, the capitalization (or non-capitalization) of the word church reflects that of the original author.
(3) The ROCA Bishops’ Sobor of 1976 reiterated this distinction between the True Russian Orthodox Church and the Moscow Patriarchate in its Epistle to the Flock, signed by all eighteen hierarchs present: "Our Church Abroad, as is well-known, constitutes a part of the Russian Mother-Church, her free part. Although we, following the Testament of His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anastasy, of blessed memory, have no communion whatsoever with the Moscow Patriarchate; yet we have never broken with the Russian Church, our Mother-Church." (Pravoslavnaya Rus, No. 21, Nov. 1/14, 1976, pp. 1-4.)
