Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: canonical obstacles

Expand Messages
  • michael nikitin
    So I wouldn t be understood, I am including a letter from our previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may not understand clearer. I also
    Message 1 of 11 , May 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      So I wouldn't be understood, I am including a letter from our previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may not understand clearer.

      I also stated joining ROCOR, who has stayed on the true path, not for ROCOR to join the uncanonical, schismatic creation of Stalin as the Western Dioscese called the MP.

      Hope the letter below helps:

      Michael N

      A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF
      THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE
      MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

      Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter:
      Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.

      From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being mentioned
      more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the members of
      the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining
      their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines, immediately
      kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster might
      happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according
      to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-ocracy.
      There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of lies. This
      lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust
      anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging fact may
      turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a provocation...

      Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the best,
      not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of
      his convictions, but simply noting the sad
      fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before the
      enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display courage and
      daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?! Because his
      activity took place outside of the true Church...

      What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and
      insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime
      has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet
      Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church,
      having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the
      concentration camps.

      This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch
      Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all
      their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day
      and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian
      Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a
      terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan
      Sergius, by his infamous and
      apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and
      proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was
      fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession:
      having fallen under their own anathema! For in
      1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in
      1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud
      the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of
      in the Apocalypse.

      As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal
      Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated
      themselves from the Soviet church, and thus
      the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the
      official church for its betrayal of Christ.

      And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the activities of
      Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the press that he
      is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in her. Has his
      spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the official
      church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I have hated
      the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit I am
      breaking off with the company
      of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church. Why,
      then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would have
      destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue of the
      fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament of
      Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we must not
      have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no communion in
      prayer, but not even ordinary
      contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have refused to
      remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from membership
      in her the barrier would no longer
      have applied to him..........

      The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a terrible time
      was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the
      appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and such while
      on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of
      Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs,
      Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very same
      time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest
      betrayal of Christ.

      To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere
      religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not to condone
      many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people. But for
      him, Pimen was, and likely still is,
      his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us, it is
      not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution:
      on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of Pimen as
      unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as having no
      force or significance.

      How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to do?
      Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful? Say the
      same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has already
      renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before when he
      preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the faithful and
      now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said that there
      is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for the one
      he just now made. But in order to do
      that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true Church,
      and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church will
      undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice
      and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he will pass
      over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify him just
      as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant
      that he find the true and saving path.

      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.

      In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several things out
      to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to fulfill
      the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First Hierarch
      bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church
      whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact.
      On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct relations with
      Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a
      man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private
      opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko said: I
      am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could have
      entered into lively contact
      with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a violation of
      ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not
      answer him although I could have said much. By the
      way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to
      commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great Entrance?
      Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch
      who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but, ah, too
      impetuous fellow minister!



      vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@

      If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and they
      did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
      first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
      a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
      calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
      from a heretical sect.
      ...


      ---------------------------------
      Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      XPICTOC BOCKPECE! ... JRS: And that is a key issue. ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, not because the latter was in
      Message 2 of 11 , May 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

        Vova Lutchenkov wrote:

        > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
        > from a heretical sect.

        JRS: And that is a key issue.

        ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in history.

        > It also has
        > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
        > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years before
        > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
        > Patriarch.

        JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council [Sobor] in Russia.

        There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be a "church council" in the Russian Empire.

        Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.

        On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben at the Beginning of Any Good Work".

        > Can one of the clergy
        > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria along
        > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the Bulgarian
        > people for "working with the communist government?
        >
        > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from Fathers
        > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts of
        > repentance or confession.

        JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.

        In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try and locate it again.

        I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did anything of the kind.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
        --
        CoreComm Webmail.
        http://home.core.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • vlutchenkov
        Voistinu Voskrese!! Father Bless, New subject but the discussion continues. Father John: And that is a key issue. Vova: And I do not think we will get a
        Message 3 of 11 , May 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Voistinu Voskrese!!

          Father Bless,

          New subject but the discussion continues.


          Father John: And that is a key issue.
          Vova: And I do not think we will get a response from Mr. Nikitin. He
          may have slipped on that slope.

          Father John:
          > Vova: It also has an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-
          Russian Church Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for
          200 years before Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did
          not have a Patriarch.
          JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
          [Sobor] in Russia.

          Vova: Yes Father I agree. I think I wrote that portion rather
          poorly. What I was trying to say was that once again men wiser than
          us (or at least me) knew exactly what they were writing. I
          understood the comment "calling itself an All-Russian Church Council
          in Moscow" to be (dare I say) an accusation of the lack of freedom
          in the Soviet Union and that in fact it could not be "all-Russian"
          if the Diaspora was not part of it. Again the writers when they had
          the chance did not state that the Orthodox Church of Russia (or all
          the people that were partaking in its sacraments) lacked grace, they
          just question the patriarchal power of a man.

          Father John: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for
          forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that
          was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet
          oppression.
          Vova: Again Father thank you for a direct answer. But, as you are
          well aware, judging by your writing style, words are important. So,
          yes I have read Patriarch Alexy's statement a number of times and
          felt it a bit - well disingenuous. In Russian I would say it was a
          bit of some great kluchkotvorstvo (I like that concept/word in
          Russian than in English - though in English it is rarely and just
          does not sound as great.)

          I will now pose a question in simple layperson's words and
          thoughts. The question is hypothetical. If anyone reads more into
          it so be it, but the question and answer can stand on their own
          without commentary or as they say on TV programs "Any resemblance to
          person living or dead is purely a coincidence."

          So here is the question. If I came to you for confession and told
          you that I belonged to a group that was in the past responsible for
          and in some cases enjoyed torturing little rabbits.
          Can I go to communion?

          (More questions may follow.)


          In Christ,
          Boba

          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
          <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
          >
          > XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
          >
          > Vova Lutchenkov wrote:
          >
          > > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to
          be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not
          come
          > > from a heretical sect.
          >
          > JRS: And that is a key issue.
          >
          > ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow
          Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because
          the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was
          right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in
          history.
          >
          > > It also has
          > > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
          > > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years
          before
          > > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
          > > Patriarch.
          >
          > JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
          [Sobor] in Russia.
          >
          > There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of
          Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the
          Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors
          did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be
          a "church council" in the Russian Empire.
          >
          > Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time
          since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus
          as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.
          >
          > On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben
          at the Beginning of Any Good Work".
          >
          > > Can one of the clergy
          > > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria
          along
          > > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the
          Bulgarian
          > > people for "working with the communist government?
          > >
          > > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from
          Fathers
          > > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts
          of
          > > repentance or confession.
          >
          > JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness,
          and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in
          the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.
          >
          > In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at
          least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my
          mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try
          and locate it again.
          >
          > I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any
          other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did
          anything of the kind.
          >
          > In Christ
          > Fr. John R. Shaw
          > --
          > CoreComm Webmail.
          > http://home.core.com
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Gilbert Gamboa
          vlutchenkov wrote: Voistinu Voskrese!! Father Bless, New subject but the discussion continues. Father John: And that is a key issue.
          Message 4 of 11 , May 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@...> wrote: Voistinu Voskrese!!

            Father Bless,

            New subject but the discussion continues.


            Father John: And that is a key issue.
            Vova: And I do not think we will get a response from Mr. Nikitin. He
            may have slipped on that slope.

            Father John:
            > Vova: It also has an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-
            Russian Church Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for
            200 years before Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did
            not have a Patriarch.
            JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
            [Sobor] in Russia.

            Vova: Yes Father I agree. I think I wrote that portion rather
            poorly. What I was trying to say was that once again men wiser than
            us (or at least me) knew exactly what they were writing. I
            understood the comment "calling itself an All-Russian Church Council
            in Moscow" to be (dare I say) an accusation of the lack of freedom
            in the Soviet Union and that in fact it could not be "all-Russian"
            if the Diaspora was not part of it. Again the writers when they had
            the chance did not state that the Orthodox Church of Russia (or all
            the people that were partaking in its sacraments) lacked grace, they
            just question the patriarchal power of a man.

            Father John: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for
            forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that
            was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet
            oppression.
            Vova: Again Father thank you for a direct answer. But, as you are
            well aware, judging by your writing style, words are important. So,
            yes I have read Patriarch Alexy's statement a number of times and
            felt it a bit - well disingenuous. In Russian I would say it was a
            bit of some great kluchkotvorstvo (I like that concept/word in
            Russian than in English - though in English it is rarely and just
            does not sound as great.)

            I will now pose a question in simple layperson's words and
            thoughts. The question is hypothetical. If anyone reads more into
            it so be it, but the question and answer can stand on their own
            without commentary or as they say on TV programs "Any resemblance to
            person living or dead is purely a coincidence."

            So here is the question. If I came to you for confession and told
            you that I belonged to a group that was in the past responsible for
            and in some cases enjoyed torturing little rabbits.
            Can I go to communion?

            (More questions may follow.)


            In Christ,
            Boba

            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
            <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
            >
            > XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
            >
            > Vova Lutchenkov wrote:
            >
            > > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to
            be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not
            come
            > > from a heretical sect.
            >
            > JRS: And that is a key issue.
            >
            > ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow
            Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because
            the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was
            right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in
            history.
            >
            > > It also has
            > > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
            > > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years
            before
            > > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
            > > Patriarch.
            >
            > JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
            [Sobor] in Russia.
            >
            > There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of
            Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the
            Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors
            did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be
            a "church council" in the Russian Empire.
            >
            > Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time
            since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus
            as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.
            >
            > On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben
            at the Beginning of Any Good Work".
            >
            > > Can one of the clergy
            > > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria
            along
            > > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the
            Bulgarian
            > > people for "working with the communist government?
            > >
            > > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from
            Fathers
            > > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts
            of
            > > repentance or confession.
            >
            > JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness,
            and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in
            the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.
            >
            > In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at
            least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my
            mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try
            and locate it again.
            >
            > I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any
            other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did
            anything of the kind.
            >
            > In Christ
            > Fr. John R. Shaw
            > --
            > CoreComm Webmail.
            > http://home.core.com
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >









            Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod





            SPONSORED LINKS
            Jewish orthodox Orthodox Orthodox church Greek orthodox church Sect of judaism

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------





            ---------------------------------
            How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • vlutchenkov
            XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!! Ahh Mr.Nikitin replied. (My apology for think he would not.) Mr. Nikitin: Hope the letter below helps: Vova: Yes it did. Especially
            Message 5 of 11 , May 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!!

              Ahh Mr.Nikitin replied. (My apology for think he would not.)

              Mr. Nikitin: "Hope the letter below helps:"
              Vova: Yes it did. Especially the following portion of the letter.

              "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."

              Vova: Mr. Nikitin, please remember that a Metropolitan is like the
              Chairman of the Board. He is of course free to express and write his
              opinions. However, when it comes time to vote he gets ONE vote.
              Decisions of the Council of Bishops are voted on and majority rules.
              In addition, if I am not mistaken the letter you offered
              as "evidence" was written to a priest within the Diocese of the
              writer. That is also important as far as the Church is structured.

              In Christ,
              Vova



              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
              <nikitinmike@...> wrote:
              >
              > So I wouldn't be understood, I am including a letter from our
              previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may
              not understand clearer.
              >
              > I also stated joining ROCOR, who has stayed on the true path, not
              for ROCOR to join the uncanonical, schismatic creation of Stalin as
              the Western Dioscese called the MP.
              >
              > Hope the letter below helps:
              >
              > Michael N
              >
              > A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF
              > THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE
              > MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE
              >
              > Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter:
              > Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.
              >
              > From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being
              mentioned
              > more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the
              members of
              > the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining
              > their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines,
              immediately
              > kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster
              might
              > happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according
              > to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-
              ocracy.
              > There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of
              lies. This
              > lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust
              > anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging
              fact may
              > turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a
              provocation...
              >
              > Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the
              best,
              > not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and
              betrayal of
              > his convictions, but simply noting the sad
              > fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before
              the
              > enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display
              courage and
              > daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?! Because
              his
              > activity took place outside of the true Church...
              >
              > What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often
              and
              > insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating
              regime
              > has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet
              > Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true
              Church,
              > having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or
              into the
              > concentration camps.
              >
              > This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness
              Patriarch
              > Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the
              Communists and all
              > their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till
              this day
              > and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-
              Russian
              > Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority.
              And a
              > terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church,
              Metropolitan
              > Sergius, by his infamous and
              > apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the
              Bolsheviks and
              > proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense
              was
              > fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of
              Confession:
              > having fallen under their own anathema! For in
              > 1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism,
              while in
              > 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began
              to laud
              > the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of
              > in the Apocalypse.
              >
              > As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his
              criminal
              > Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately
              separated
              > themselves from the Soviet church, and thus
              > the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has
              anathematized the
              > official church for its betrayal of Christ.
              >
              > And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the
              activities of
              > Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the
              press that he
              > is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in
              her. Has his
              > spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the
              official
              > church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I
              have hated
              > the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit
              I am
              > breaking off with the company
              > of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church.
              Why,
              > then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would
              have
              > destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue
              of the
              > fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament
              of
              > Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we
              must not
              > have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no
              communion in
              > prayer, but not even ordinary
              > contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have
              refused to
              > remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from
              membership
              > in her the barrier would no longer
              > have applied to him..........
              >
              > The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a
              terrible time
              > was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the
              > appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and
              such while
              > on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of
              > Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs,
              > Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very
              same
              > time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest
              > betrayal of Christ.
              >
              > To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his
              sincere
              > religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not
              to condone
              > many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people.
              But for
              > him, Pimen was, and likely still is,
              > his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us,
              it is
              > not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution:
              > on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of
              Pimen as
              > unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as
              having no
              > force or significance.
              >
              > How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to
              do?
              > Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful?
              Say the
              > same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has
              already
              > renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before
              when he
              > preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the
              faithful and
              > now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said
              that there
              > is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for
              the one
              > he just now made. But in order to do
              > that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true
              Church,
              > and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church
              will
              > undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice
              > and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he
              will pass
              > over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify
              him just
              > as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant
              > that he find the true and saving path.
              >
              > 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.
              >
              > In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several
              things out
              > to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to
              fulfill
              > the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First
              Hierarch
              > bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church
              > whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary
              contact.
              > On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct
              relations with
              > Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how
              sincere a
              > man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your
              private
              > opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko
              said: I
              > am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could
              have
              > entered into lively contact
              > with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a
              violation of
              > ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did
              not
              > answer him although I could have said much. By the
              > way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to
              > commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great
              Entrance?
              > Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch
              > who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but,
              ah, too
              > impetuous fellow minister!
              >
              >
              >
              > vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@
              >
              > If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and
              they
              > did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
              > first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
              > a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
              > calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
              > from a heretical sect.
              > ...
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for
              just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.