A Catacomb Epistle of 1962

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Sat 12 June 2004 12:41 am

Nicholas wrote:
Daniel were you talking about these pages?

http://www.monasterypress.com/catacomb.html

http://www.monasterypress.com/personal.html

The first one, yes...but I read it at Holy Cross Hermitage's (WV-ROCOR) site.

I haven't the the second one though.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 23 June 2004 1:23 pm

Peter,

I would like to think that I have no pressing external reasons to think either way on issues like this. I am not ROAC, and the reasons I am no longer a part of ROCOR are not really related to the issue at hand. I am not claiming to be free from biases, but I do think that I come to the table feeling like I have to defend a certain position because of the group that I am a part of (whether you, or Nicholas, or others, have that "feeling" that you must defend your own group, I do not know--I do not mean to judge you).

I also do not claim to have all the answers, but certain things about your position I do not understand. What I found especially disheartening was when you said, "Well, no surprise that your opinions aren't those of the Catacomb Church." I think, first and foremost, we are dealing with truth here. Obviously it is true that (being fallible) we each have our own view of truth, and perhaps see it from a less than perfect perspective. I think we are both trying to grasp at that truth, though, and I don't think that that truth is so easily outlined that you can claim absolutely that OOD's "opinion" is wrong. Seraphim Rose himself said:

"Communism is actually a very powerful heresy whose central thesis, if I'm not mistaken, is chiliasm or millennialism: history is to reach its culmination in an indefinite state of earthly blessedness, a perfected mankind living in perfect peace and harmony. Examine the printed sermons of the Moscow hierarchs: again and again one finds the same theme of the "Kingdom of God on earth" through the spread of communism. This is outright heresy, or perhaps something even worse: the turning aside of the Church from its very purpose--the saving of souls for eternal life--and giving them over to the devil's kingdom, promising false blessedness on earth and condemning them to everlasting damnation." (emphasis his) - Damascene Christensen, Not of This World: The Life and Teachings of Fr. Seraphim Rose, (Fr. Seraphim Rose Foundation, 1993), p. 379

How this charge of heresy squares with some of the other things that Fr. Seraphim said about the MP (cf Ibid. pp. 613-614) I do not know. What I do know is that a charge of heresy is an arresting and aweful thing. One cannot charge someone as being a heretic quietly: even if the charge is made meekly or hesitantly, the inner content of such a charge is always exceedingly powerful, and totally salvific. This brings me to the first problem that I see. I do not know if you consider Communism, Sergianism, and so forth as being heretical, but if we are going to call these things heretical, then how can we say that there is grace there? Here is what the divinely-inspired Met. Philaret said on these issues:

What do these clear and categorical words of this Holy Father signify? They indicate nothing other than that schism is graceless. Christ was not divided, and His grace is one. If one is to believe in the "state of grace" of schism, then one must either admit that we do not have grace those who broke away having taken it with them; or else admit that there are two graces (and obviously two true Churches, for grace is given only in the true Church)... And heresy separates the human soul from the Church, from God, and from salvation.

Vladyka Anthony, when presenting the abbess' staff to Abbess Paula said to her: "Be condescending to all, know how to converse with those weak in faith and with scoffers. Behave wisely with heretics, but never agree with them that they supposedly have the grace of the Holy Spirit; know that the Roman Catholics, the Mohammedans and all other heretics are without grace."

[A quotation from a Paschal encyclical of Vladyka Anthony's (1934):] "Those who have cut themselves off from Her deprive themselves of the hope of salvation, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council teach concerning this, having recognized the renegades as being totally devoid of grace, according to the word of Christ: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Unfortunately, some Orthodox laymen, even, alas, many priests (and hierarchs) have subjected themselves to this state of gracelessness, although still retaining the out ward appearance of the church services and the apparent performance of the Mysteries." - A Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Abbess Magdalena

And in another letter:

Will anyone dare to assert that the Lord and His grace abide in the Church of the evil-doers, which lauds His demonized enemies and collaborates with them, which because of this is found under a twofold anathema, as indicated above? Can a church which has united with the God-haters possess grace?! The answer is obvious!

I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't understand why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them, as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is along these lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.

The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch Saint Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the church canons in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy in their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this principle. And Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics do have; whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by those uniting [themselves to the Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said Vladyka Anthony.

In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace. - A Letter from Met. Philaret to a Priest of the Church Abroad Concerning Fr. Dimitry Dudko and the Moscow Patriarchate

Having given these quotes, I unfortunately have to point out the the author of the Epistle you have quoted, and put on your site, vehemently attacks these ideas expressed by Met. Philaret in these words: "We cannot imitate those ignorant ones who stupidly affirm: 'Those are not churches, they are demons’ temples, those who attend them defile themselves and are deprived of saving grace,' and other such foolish sayings." So some say that Met. Philaret is a saint, but the author of this Epistle considers that which Met. Philaret has said to be foolish and stupid. I do not mean to judge the author of the epistle--he was speaking generally and probably would have never spoke so boldly about an individual person (ie. Met. Philaret)... nonetheless, is there not a sharp difference in the views expressed by the two men? And so do I have to accept the epistle to hold to an orthodox position?

Regarding the epistle itself, while I don't have a problem with it's anonymous character to a great extent, I have to ask if an anonymous letter coming from a different source would be received so readily (ie. I wonder if this epistle is warmly received somewhat because of what it says: people agree with it, and so accept it). Let us suppose that ROAC came out with an anonymous epistle from the 1970's by "a member of the Catacomb Church," and this epistle supported their claims. What weight would you give to such an epistle? Would you not be very wary in accepting it as legit? Would you perhaps even dismiss it out of hand, either because of it's anonymous author, or the source of it's release (ie. ROAC)?

In the article on your site, What Does the Catacomb Church Think?, we find the following quote:

Sergianism is a betrayal, we must stay clear of it; but we need not deny the grace of the Mysteries of its clergy or expect all the faithful to be able to follow us. Such were the views of the wise early hierarchs of the Catacomb Church, set forth in most detail by Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan.

Even if Met. Cyril and others did in fact say that the MP had grace, would that mean that we would of necessity have to agree with them? I will quote the words of St. Photius, as I think they are applicable to this situation:

"I do not admit that what you assert was so plainly taught by them, but if they happened to express some such thing, if they happened to fall into something unbecoming, then I would imitate the good sons of Noah and hide my father's shame, but using silence and gratitude as a cloak... you did not consider that they were human, and that no one constituted from clay and mutable matter can maintain himself forever superior to human blunder. Indeed, it happens that a trace of some blemish clings even to the best of men." - St. Photius, On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit, 70

Regarding Met. Cyril, I am perfectly willing to concede that he had a similar view to yours when Sergianism first arose. But from I have read, he seemed to change his views (at least somewhat) as the years went on. This is not to say that I totally agree with the view of Vladimir Moss here, but I do think that something he quoted of Met. Cyril is worth quoting here as well:

"With regard to your perplexities concerning Sergianism, I can say that the very same questions in almost the same form were addressed to me from Kazan ten years ago, and then I replied affirmatively to them, because I considered everything that Metropolitan Sergius had done as a mistake which he himself was conscious of and wished to correct. Moreover, among our ordinary flock there were many people who had not investigated what had happened, and it was impossible to demand from them a decisive and active condemnation of the events. Since then much water has flowed under the bridge. The expectations that Metropolitan Sergius would correct himself have not been justified, but there has been enough time for the formerly ignorant members of the Church, enough incentive and enough opportunity to investigate what has happened; and very many have both investigated and understood that Metropolitan Sergius is departing from that Orthodox Church which the Holy Patriarch Tikhon entrusted to us to guard, and consequently there can be no part or lot with him for the Orthodox. The recent events have finally made clear the renovationist nature of Sergianism. We cannot know whether those believers who remain in Sergianism will be saved, because the work of eternal Salvation is a work of the mercy and grace of God. But for those who see and feel the unrighteousness of Sergianism (those are your questions) it would be unforgiveable craftiness to close one’s eyes to this unrighteousness and seek there for the satisfaction of one’s spiritual needs when one’s conscience doubts in the possibility of receiving such satisfaction. Everything which is not of faith is sin"

This quote of Met. Cyril seems more in line with ROCOR's position over the years, in a number of ways. First, it was not said that those in the MP wre unquestionably destined for hell. Second, it also did not say explicitly that the MP had grace. Rather, both settled for something vague or agnostic. And third, both (ie. Met. Cyril and ROCOR) said that those who really understand what is going on will leave the MP.

I find it interesting that Met. Cyril did not say "we cannot know whether those believers who remain in Sergianism will be saved, since the MP has grace". No, there was no affirmation of God's grace in the Church; rather, Met. Cyril was agnostic and left the issue to the mysterious judgements of God. Where there is grace and no danger from heresy or schism, there is no need to be agnostic, since one can simply say "if they remain faithful to the end, they will be saved". But in this case, Met. Cyril did not say that. I submit that he could not say that.

Another question springs to mind. If ROCOR recognized that there were faithful members of the Church within the MP, then why did she do secret ordinations and consecrations, and try to build the Church in Russia up with a wholly seperate clergy? This would seem to be an uncanonical act (raising a bishop where there was already a supposedly Orthodox bishop) from a "moderate" perspective, unless I misunderstand what was happening?

Daniel,

I was looking through Holy Cross Hermitage's site and they have some back issues of Orthodox Life. In the March-April issue from 1951 there is an interesting article about the Catacomb church. I think it's tone and such are not too dis-similar from the Epistle written 11years later.

I'm afraid I would have to respectfully disagree here. Or, at least, I think there are some things in the document you mention that present problems for a more moderate position. For example, the document said:

Similar offers to sign a declaration had been made to Metropolitan Agafangel, Metropolitan Joseph and Archbishop Seraphim of Uglitch, that is, to all the most outstanding hierarchs from the spiritual point of view and the greatest sticklers for canonical integrity. At last a Judas was found among the bishops who was canonically correct. True, in the gravest moment in the history of the Russian Church, when the "Renewers" began to triumph, he went over to them; but afterwards he did penance in a canonically correct manner. This was Metropolitan Sergius. He delivered the Russian Orthodox Church into the hands of the enemies of Christ, but he gave his treachery a strictly canonical form. He signed the Tuchkov Declaration and polished its formulation. The Declaration was issued in the name of the representative of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal See, July 16/29, 1927. It was in vain that the faithful bishops, clergy and laity implored Metropolitan Sergius to desist from playing the part of Judas but to take example from the Apostle Peter who wept bitterly over his sin, and to repent of his betrayal of Christ. But the admonitions did not help and the ecclesiastical schism of 1927 took place.

To be compared with Judas is a horrifying thing! And Sergius is said--by this article--to have brought about "ecclesiastical schism". So I ask this question: does schism seperate people from the Church of God? What do the Fathers, Canons, and Councils say? Who went into schism in 1927? A charge of schism means that someone, somewhere must have been behind it, and that that person must have had a flock. If the article claims that Sergius caused a schism... then when was this schism healed (so that those who followed Sergius could be said to have grace again)?

I might also add that something said back then still rings true today (though in a somewhat different way). The article said:

And as the enemies of the Underground Church, the soviet and pro-soviet churchmen, require but cannot obtain precise information as to the names, addresses and activities of the members of the Catacomb Church, they deny its existence and call it a myth.

This sounds like the attempts of some today to say that the catacomb Church "died out" decades ago. I realise that this is being unfair to many people, who sincerely believe the rumors and remarks of certain people, who have spread the idea that the catacomb Church has died away. I do not wish to attack or offend these sincere people who believe this... but I do nonetheless think that these people have been tricked and misinformed (as I think ROCOR's own history demonstrates to some extent).

Also, the article says this, which I think is totally the opposite of what the Epistle given by Peter was saying:

We have information that a priest after such a registration, told his wife and two daughters who had come to visit him that they should stop going to the Soviet Patriarchal Church when they returned home. "It is better not to go to any church whatever or receive communion at all than to be implicated in a church of evil-doers," he said. The widow of the priest (he was shot after their visit) and her two daughters were persecuted by the Soviet priests who called them "schismatics" and "sectarians." They were nourished in the Catacomb Church and kept the Sacrament in their house (1945).

In the end, it would be better to simply stay at home and pray, than to go to a Church that is heretical or in schism: for going to such a Church might very well cost someone their soul. "But isn't this sectarian?" someone might ask. I would say that it is the advice of the Fathers, both those in the ancient past and those up through the 20th century. "But what about the sacraments?" someone might ask. But I would ask, and what sacraments are there in a pseudo-Church who is not part of the body of Christ? Can a schismatic or heretical Church have sacraments? No... partaking of their "sacraments" (especially when you admit that they are in schism or heresy) does nothing but bring harm to the soul. St. Seraphim of Sarov spoke of those who wanted to partake of the eucharist, but because of things out of their control were not able to. Such people, St. Seraphim said, would be granted sacramental grace by God in a mysterious way, and should not think that they would be totally deprived.

I think the epistle and the essay I posted together show that the situation in Russia was way more complex than I had previously thought. Way, way more gray area than I had previously considered. I also get the idea that there was a strong distiction made between the administration in Moscow and the average faithful Christian who may have found themselves part of the MP.

I agree with this last part, but as I asked before on this forum (when I came across such a distinction in ROCOR documents): what does this mean? What can such a distinction mean, and on what ecclesiological principles is it based? Can lay people be holy, while attending heretical/schismatic Churches and being under heretical/schismatic bishops? I do not say that I have the answer to this (each situation must be looked at individually), but I think the general and immutable beliefs of the Church on heresy and schism is quite plain. I think the Fathers (including the modern-day confessor of truth, Met. Philaret) have spoken unanimously on this issue.

Also, as I said earlier, I remember seeing in the literature about this issue the idea that, once a person understood what something like Sergianism was, that they would have to take a different course. In other words, not only was there a distinction between clergy and laity, but there was also a distinction between those laity who understood what sergianism was, and those who didn't. Again, I question what ecclesiological principles such a disctintion is based on. Are we going to say that ignorance of error means that a person will not be judged? But this seems to me to contradict what the Fathers taught. But then I've read very little of the Fathers, so maybe I'm totally mistaken here?

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Wed 23 June 2004 2:06 pm

Dear Justin,

Thank you for taking the time to give us a thoughtful and probing perspective on this topic. Unfortunately(maybe fortunately for the rest of the forum members ), I won't be able to give an in depth reply as I'm in the process of packing and leaving for Russia in a day. Though I will try to make time for a reply once I've settled in. For the time being, one point of agreement I'd like to make is this: Some of us, myself included and probably myself foremost, are, as you said, in the habit of arguing with a specific position in mind- presenting material with the main goal being to "defend" this position. This defense is often given in a spirit which runs contrary to a genuine searching for Truth, and contrary to a spirit of Christian love. In fact, it may be that presenting a "position" on the New Martyrs in such a way is actually an offense to the memory of the New Martyrs. Their name should not be used solely as a "platform" for the furthering of a particular ideology. I'm in the process of transcribing a talk given by Fr. Seraphim Rose on the topic of "The Theology of Archbishop John". In this talk Fr. Seraphim notes that St. John, when discussing or writing about important theological questions of his day, always presented them in a "scandal free" way. Fr. Seraphim notes that in reading St. John's responses to certain controversial questions, one would never even think there was any kind of controversy at all surrounding the issue. May we all strive, myself first, to emulate this kind of saintliness and genuine love of Truth.

Thanks Justin,

Peter