SERGIANISM IS ALIVE and not denied to this day in Moscow Patriarchate.
- Dear ALL
It is my fervent hope that the ROCA SOBOR of Bishops (or Council of Bishops) scheduled for October 2000 will see the MP canonisation of the new
martyrs as a smokescreen formalising MP allegiance to sergianism & ecumenism. His Eminence Metropolitan Vitlay has reminded all of us -
including those of us who are loyal members of the Russian Orthodox Church (abroad) that there should be no dialogue considered with the MP now or
future as the MP has done nothing to change our ROCA position,,, the adherence to the Royal Path of our Church. It is more than clear that apart from
one Bishop who
spoke out against the ecumenist document - it was approved as MP doctrine by the majority of the bishops who must be considered now as all being
loyal to their soviet past of collaboration & ecumenist engagement per se.
The 118 Russian sailors presumed lost aboard the Kursk is a national tragedy of monumental proportions. I am ashamed of Putin &
his government for doing nothing (some will say not enough) to save the lives of the young sailors. It seems the SOVIET style of
government behaviour is evident in the non action, deliberate lies (propaganda) and the value given to those in the KURSK. It seems
nothing has changed - the actors are the same but the roles may have slightly changed. We in Canberra on Sunday prayed for the
repose of the souls of the KURSK sailors & my heart goes out to the families of these now departed brave warriors of HOLY Russia.
Eternal Memory! Vechnaya Pamyat!
"Why do they always hide these serious accidents from the people. It was
the same with the Chernobyl catastrophe, and look what that caused."
- A pensioner long accustomed to the cult of secrecy in her homeland asked
despairingly about the Kursk Submarine tragedy.
Now in regard to the so called "JUBILEE BISHOPS' COUNCIL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH (August 13 - 16, 2000, Moscow)".
"The venue may have been new, but there was a strong sense of the past at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow this week,
as 146 bishops from the Russian Orthodox church met for a ground-breaking four-day council meeting.
The Cathedral was rebuilt in the 1990s after being blown up on the orders of Stalin in 1931, and has come to symbolise
the resurgence of the Russian church. But the decisions of the council over the past four days opened say much about the
delicate relationships between the Orthodox church, the state and Russian society.
The church's decisions are significant, if only because so many Russians (even non-religious or formerly atheist ones) claim
at least nominal cultural adherence to Orthodoxy; and because Alexei II, the Patriarch or head of the church, has become such
a high-profile public figure.....
Mr Hackel's views echo those of others who believe the significance of the Bishops' Council lies less in what was decided than in the method
used to reach its conclusions. "Voting was unanimous, just like in the Supreme Soviet," says Father Edelstein.
A change in the church's statutes in 1988 called for a general council including clergy and lay believers to meet every five years. But none has
taken place, and the bishops alone have decided all significant policy decisions.
"Since the Soviet period, it's still the same institution, with the same people in charge," says Philip Walters, an expert on Orthodoxy
from the Keston Institute in Oxford. "They are not inclined to take on initiatives and are afraid of opening up the hierarchy to newcomers."
In the report Alexis II as the "so called" Patriarch of the MP touched on many questions affecting the MP church life. This report of the "Patriarch"
was not distinguished from any other accounting: it was an account before comrades but not an exhortation to the flock.
He was silent on sergianism, ecumenism, modernism and/or his role (and the other clergy) of collaboration in the soviet era. He
did not call for a National Commission (something akin to the TRUTH commission in South Africa) to investigate the soviet era atrocities/murder -
committed by the Bolsheviks against the enslaved people of RUSSIA... His speech was bureaucratic and lacked any spiritual significance.
However, inter alia, he did refer "TO THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PEOPLE STATEMENT OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA - http://www.orthodox.net/roc/2000-mar-statement.html
or in Russian @ http://www.orthodox.net/roc/2000-mar-statement-r.html" and to the "so called Russian Church Abroad" in derogatory
terms. The MP as always was referred to the "mother Church". I ask you how can this be so - if ROCA is the Church of the New Martyr Patriarch Tihon
and has followed the Royal Path to the present while the MP is the administrative creation of stalin. "We must ourselves understand, and also
declare for all to hear, that since 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius signed his lamentable "declaration," and up
to the present day, our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has not had and does not have any communion
in prayer with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is nothing other than the uncanonical creation of the former Soviet regime...."
epistle issued by Metropolitan Vitaly on 1/14 August 2000.)
This is what an OCA (then known as "metropolia") Metropolitan said about the MP:
"On November 15, 1946, shortly before the gathering of the All-American Sobor, (metr) Theophilus wrote (metr) Anastasy:
"It is my opinion that all bishops abroad should be in charge of the local administration of their districts, but should unite for mutual assistance
and cooperation under the leadership of one who is the most worthy and the eldest, either by length or ordination or rank,
and who is elected by them. I am deeply convinced that the coming Sobor will obtain positive results and will assist
many to understand the inner power of Catholicity in the Church, and that it (i.e., the Sobor) will repudiate a dictatorship stemming from Moscow."
In his "pre-sobor address," printed in the Russian American Orthodox
Messenger (November, 1940, no. 11) (metr) Theophilus said, "A particular
interest is now being shown in Orthodox Americans by Moscow, by the
so-called Patriarchal Church, which in reality does not exist - since,
after the blessed repose of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the election of
his successors by All -Russian Church councils were conducted not
according the canons of the Church but by the ruling (ukaz) of the atheist
civil authorities. For this reason, the Orthodox Church in the Soviet
Union has become not a 'Patriarchal' but, on the contrary, a 'Patriarch -
less' Church. For us members of the Orthodox Church in America, it is
especially necessary that we heed the words of the holy Apostle Paul, 'see
then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the
time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise . . . .'
(Ephesians 5:1 5-1 6 ). "
Excellent advice which unfortunately Theophilus himself was soon to
discard! And here is a newspaper statement of Archbishop Leonty (future
metropolitan of the metropolia) made after the Sobor had actually begun:
"My conscience does not permit me to submit to the Patriarch. In the
future the synod of Carlovtsy will come to America, and therefore it is
not necessary for us to break ties with it."
I ask how was the present "Patriach" elected? Now to to the rest of
deliberations of the "jubilee council"
"The bishops' council meeting in Moscow glorified 860 martyrs and confessors and in addition decreed the churchwide veneration of 230 local saints of
two categories. Members of the tsarist family were canonized as passion bearers. Besides this, nine holy hierarchs, holy righteous persons,
and venerable persons, and 34 martyrs from the Valaam Trasnfiguration cloister who perished at the hands of newly converted Lutherans in 1578
were enrolled in the canon of saints. In addition, church wide veneration was decreed for the venerable Iov of Anzersk (a local saint of the Solovki
and thirteen elders of Optino who also had been locally venerated saints previously..."
".....Some of the reporters who write on church topics are prepared to see here a "politics" that is aimed at reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia,
which canonized Nicholas II and his family within a synaxis of "Russian new martyrs" back in 1981. However such a view is a hasty one. First, ROCOR
that such a rapprochement could be achieved simply by the Moscow patriarchate's simply recognizing the action of canonization that occurred in New
York two decades ago.
Second, this problem has a more profound aspect, a moral one. For many Russian monarchists, who were such back in the soviet years, as far
as I recall, object to the very fact that the work that is sacred to them should be conducted by former KGB agents who displayed well known zeal
in their cooperation with the soviet repessive machinery that was guilty of the death of the former sovereign. For these people the suspicion has
not been dispersed that Patriarch Alexis was agent Drozdov, who consciously entered into cooperation with KGB in 1958.
Or let's take Metropolitan Kirill (whom some consider to be agent Mikhailov). I personally remember well how in 1981, when he was rector
of the Leningrad Ecclesiastical Academy and Seminary, on orders from KGB without thinking a moment he expelled from the student body
one monastic priest because he had led a requiem for members of the slain tsarist family. Most interesting, this monastic priest himself
was not the initiator of that requiem but, as priest of the academy's church he read, among other things, a note given to him "about rest
for the slain servants of God Nicholas, Alexandra, etc.," without even mentioning their royal titles, as has become the practice in RPTs after 1991.
It is also possible to point to yet another "zealot" for glorification of Nicholas II at the present council, Metropolitan Pitirim (at the beginning
of the 90s the mass media identified him as agent "Abbot"). Now he is in the shadows, but twenty years ago he was the mouthpiece
of the patriarchate, heading its publishing department. Readers of the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate" of the time well recall how,
expressing the official position of the patriarchate, he condemned the church abroad for glorification of the last Russian emperor.
This list could be continued even further. But why? Even without that it's disgusting..." (by Hegumen Innokenty Pavlov
Segodnia, 19 August 2000 )
"We recall that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia canonized the royal family in 1981.
However one should not expect reconciliation between RPTs and ROCOR;
the "Rocorites" demand not only the glorification of the new martyrs in the canon of saints
but also complete rejection of ecumenical contacts (worshipping with non-Orthodox)... as well
as the resignation of the entire leadership of the patriarchate. " ROCA has never demanded anything from the MP, however
it has stated a position in regard to any future dialogue.
"The canonization of new Orthodox saints unquestionably is a festive and happy event.
However a barrel of honey isn't safe from a spoonful of tar. The proverbial spoon
in this case is the absence from the list of new saints of a number of names that are highly esteemed
among Orthodox believers.. ....(Aleksei Makarkin Segodnia, 19 August 2000)" and have been canonised by ROCA in 1981.. of
saints that did not recognise metr. Sergei or his appeasement/betrayal policies (for example, Metropolitan Joseph
of Petrograd: a saint and martyr of the Church, glorified by God, who would not compromise but stood for the Faith, and
proclaimed that there is no grace in Sergius' Church is not in Moscow Patriarchate's list of new martyrs)
but on the other hand there is a sprinkle of sergianist/ecumenist saints that have been canonised by the MP.
"In the face of a strong isolationist current within the church, the Moscow Patriarchate's Council of Bishops adopted a document on
Tuesday that calls for dialogue and cooperation with non-Orthodox churches, even as it says true unity
of Christians is only possible if all accept Orthodox faith and practice. The document, "Basic Principles of the Russian Orthodox Church's Attitude
Toward Heterodox," seeks to defend the church's involvement in the ecumenical movement, which seeks a unity of sorts among the world's Christian
"The very concept of tolerance in matters of faith is unacceptable," the document says, according to the Times.
The document also condemns "destructive missionary activity" by Catholic and Protestant groups, claiming they
use promises of wealth to steal away Orthodox members, the Times reported.
Such statements reflect ..... encourages more communication between Orthodox and non-Orthodox groups.
It proposes establishing joint research centers, an exchange of theological students
and professors, and cooperation on addressing social issues, the Times reported. (More ecumenism not less!!!)
The bishops also issued a landmark document on social doctrine, condemning as sinful homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion,
and artificial insemination, Reuters reported. Euthanasia is both suicide and murder, the bishops said, and Christian burials
would be denied to those who choose it. Surrogate motherhood and genetic engineering were also deemed sinful.
"The Holy Bible and the church unequivocally condemn homosexual ties as a perverse distortion of the God-given nature
of the human being," the statement said, according to the Times. The bishops said gays and lesbians should be barred
from teaching jobs and senior positions in the army, and condemned gay marriage. "
The Council allowed homosexual "Bishops" to participate in the deliberations of the work of the Council - what does
this say about the document adopted - is it just another smokescreen?
In the Lord Jese Christ Who is wondrous in His Saints,
Unworthy Deacon Basil of Canberra
23 August 2000