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

Sv: Sv: Sv: [orthodox-synod] Fr. Stephan Krasovitsky's "Open Letter..."

Expand Messages
  • Nikolaj
    Dear Valentin Absolutely - the first miracles on behalf of the prayers of the Tsarist Martyrs happened very shortly after their murders. And continued to
    Message 1 of 9 , May 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Valentin

      Absolutely - the first miracles on behalf
      of the prayers of the Tsarist Martyrs happened
      very shortly after their murders. And continued
      to happen up through time.
      I recall reading an account from a russian soldier
      who took part in the storm on the "Reichstag"
      in Berlin, 1945, where this soldier when he came
      to the second floor of the totally devastated building
      in the midst of the confusion, met a bearded officer
      in the uniform of a ww1 colonel.
      I do not in present moment remember the details, and
      will not quote anything wrongly, but this colonel was
      not a normal colonel - it was Tsarmartyr Nikolaj.

      Maybe I can find the account if I do a little research
      in my library?

      The questions are not only unpleasant, but also rethorical
      and ideological. They do not correspond with facts, but
      only to a ready-made and whole-sale ideological opinion about MP which
      does not hold water in reality.
      If you know history you know very well that the Patriarchal church
      was persecuted extremely heavy, and millions of priests died.
      Not because they resisted "the evil patriarch" but because they
      resisted communism.
      Of course there were mistakes in the ROC, but so were there in
      ROCOR as well. And it seems to me that ROCOR is even more
      stubborn in the denial of these mistakes, and "created truths."
      Regarding the anti-russian-ness of such ready-made ideological
      critic of ROC as most of your questions are based on,
      well, I have great difficulties in seeing exactly where ROCOR is
      helping the ROC or Russia as such by promoting half-truths
      and distoritions as "facts"?
      Fact is that ever since communism fell in Russia, the tone from ROCOR
      has been even more spiteful than before. This is not very much in
      the spirit of a Russian Diaspora who wants to help the Mother Country
      and the Mother Church.

      Im not so sure that what you called "proved facts" are so easy to prove?
      And don't tell me that you did not come to any conclusions?
      The way that you put your questions and the way that you formulated
      them, shows clearly that you concluded something from the point of view
      that you chose to view these matters.

      One thing is for certain - the only "righteous anger" that is pleasing to God
      is the anger directed against one's own sinfulness.
      So I absolutely agree with you, that judgmental and passionate
      postulates about the Russian Orthodox Church - whether inside or outside Russia
      has no place in a spiritual life.
      Please forgive me if you felt that I stepped over the line.

      It is very sad when you look at this list for instance.
      It is only about ideology and politics. There is hardly ever
      a posting about Orthodox Christian spirituality.
      This says something too about the climate in which
      we Orthodox Christians now conduct these discussions.
      Maybe it is not the most well-chosen forum this internet?
      There is no "person" behind the words - only an e-mail
      which it is easy to bombard or to patronize.

      I believe that a lot of these discussions would have a totally
      different atmosphere about them and a completely different
      ending to them, if we were face to face - over a cup of tea.

      In Christ
      Nikolaj


      > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Nikolaj" <pravoslavie@m...> wrote:
      > > Nevertheless
      > > the miracles ARE happening.
      > Dear Nikolaj, of course miracles do happen in Russia. They are even
      > one of the main reason for the ROC accepting to glorify the New
      > Russian Martyrs, under the pressure of the orthodox believers (the
      > other being that it will be a great help for unification between ROC
      > and ROCA, especially the glorification of the Imperial Family despite
      > the strong opposition among many ROC Bishops. This has been clearly
      > written in official Russian websites and by journalists interviewing
      > Met. Kyrill Smolensky and others).
      > I only wanted to emphasize in reply to your message that they were
      > not happening only "TODAY". Sorry if you misunderstood my thought.
      >
      > > No anti-russian rethorics will change that fact.
      > No such rethorics in my message neither anti-russian attacks. Why
      > should always that argument come in reply to some unpleasant
      > questions? We have to face the past in order to uderstand the present
      > and built the future.
      >
      > > And yes, I also reflected a lot on these questions,
      > > but obviously I came to a different conclusion than you did.
      > I don't know about your conclusion, Nikolaj, but it you read my
      > message carefully, y'll see that i did not come to any conclusion.
      > Only mentioning prooved facts and asking questions, without any
      > judgement and passion.
      > Yours in Christ
      > Valentine from Europe
      >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: <valichka@w...>
      > > To: <orthodox-synod@y...>
      > > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:06 AM
      > > Subject: Re: Sv: [orthodox-synod] Fr. Stephan Krasovitsky's "Open
      > Letter..."
      > >
      > > > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Nikolaj" <pravoslavie@m...> wrote:
      > > > > PS -Dear "Geo S" - if you would only spend your talent on
      > > > translating some of the splendid russian language books about the
      > > > Tsarist Martyrs into english. What a gift to the english speaking
      > > > Orthodox world - who are kept in ignorance about all the miracles
      > > > that are happening in Russia today because of the prayers of the
      > > > Tsarist Martyrs that are spiritually leading the much suffering
      > > > Russian Church out of the misery, by bringing the faitful back to
      > the
      > > > Church again.
      > > > ----------------------
      > > > Dear Nikolaj and members of the list, let me add some words :
      > > > - miracles are not only happening « today » in Russia (btw, thank
      > you
      > > > Fr John Whiteford for your message to Mr. Shubin about
      > his "book"),
      > > > - the « much suffering Russian Church » has suffered a lot from
      > the «
      > > > official Orthodox Church in Russia known as Moscow Patriarchate
      > since
      > > > 1943 ». I am not sure the Russian New Martyrs would appreciate to
      > be
      > > > united with the MP/KGB under that confusing denomination, no
      > matter
      > > > whatever good pastors are serving now in Russia, often in misery
      > as
      > > > opposed to « Mercedes hierarchy ».
      > > > - Hereunder some good English words from Fr Seraphime Rose for
      > our
      > > > English speaking fellows. I know it dates back to 1980, but what
      > are
      > > > 20 years compared to 80 years of communist atheist power and to
      > 2000
      > > > years of Christianity ? Please do me the favour to read it to
      > > > enlighten your understanding on what is happening in our Church,
      > > > especially here in Europe, much closer to Russia than you could
      > ever
      > > > be in America.
      > > > I have just read the messages posted since december. I am so
      > sorry to
      > > > see no compassion neither understanding to what our clergy and we
      > > > laymen are undergoing in Europe. Only unheartedly hurried
      > judgments
      > > > and condamnations. I know the answer « obey your bishop and it
      > will
      > > > be ok » but allow me to ask few questions :
      > > > - Were the venerated New Martyrs of Russia part of the « official
      > > > Orthodox Church in Russia/ Moscow Patriarchate designed as MP
      > (since
      > > > 1943) » ? Did they obey the « ruling official legal canonic «
      > > > bishops or not ? Were they not persecuted for their standing for
      > the
      > > > Truth, and their loyalty to another metropolitan than the «
      > > > official » one ?
      > > > - Did the ROCA accept to rejoin the « official Orthodox
      > Church/MP »
      > > > or disobey the « official Moscow patriarche appeal » despite the
      > > > threaten of being excommunicated by the MP ?
      > > > - Was not the Catacomb Church existing since 1926 disobeying
      > the «
      > > > official Church » for serious reasons, or only some fanatics,
      > rebel
      > > > to authority ?
      > > > - Was not the ROCA to the suffering Russian nation the free voice
      > of
      > > > the Russian Orthodox Church as opposed to the MP named according
      > to
      > > > Staline's will and controlled by the bolchevique through the
      > Council
      > > > for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, created for that
      > > > purpose?
      > > > - Was not the MP signing constant declarations in favour of the
      > > > bolchevique/soviet power and denying the existence of
      > persecutions
      > > > addressed to Christians ?
      > > > - Was not the MP actively sustaining in words and in actions the
      > > > bolchevique government risponsible for exterminating from 40 to
      > 90
      > > > millions of Russian people ?
      > > > - Were not Fr Dimitri Doudko freed in 1980 after having
      > publically
      > > > denied his activities, and Fr Gleb Yakounine condemned the same
      > year ?
      > > > - Were not 2 million people listed as « mentally ill » in
      > psychatric
      > > > hospitals until 1988 ?
      > > > - Do you think plausible that an organ of almost 170 bishops can
      > > > change its politic after 70 years of obedience to a godless
      > power,
      > > > without any change in their cadres ? Can that organ be called «
      > the
      > > > Mother Church » and be joined for by ROCA without unhurried and
      > > > careful reflections?
      > > > - Did the MP abandoned the heresy of ecumenism or do you believe
      > that
      > > > we, ROCA, are going to « help them to understand where is the
      > heresy
      > > > when we'll be part of the MP, or a kind of autocephalous or
      > > > exharchat ? » Do you understand that in that event, our parishes
      > in
      > > > Russia will return to Catacombs ? Would you feel concerned ?
      > > > - Did not Vl. Mark from Germany disobey Vl Metropolit Vitaly and
      > the
      > > > Synod for having for years personal and automous talks with
      > official
      > > > representatives of the MP up to the patriarche himself? Was he
      > > > suspended for this desobedience ? No, he has now the help of a
      > vicar.
      > > > - Did not Fr Victor Potapov disobey and was he suspended for his
      > > > desobedience ?
      > > > - Did the majority of our clergy in Western Europe became rebel
      > to
      > > > hierarchy all of a sudden after having faithfully served their
      > Church
      > > > from 10 to 45 years long, and refuse to commemorate vl Amvrossy
      > > > without serious reasons, expressed without passion during several
      > > > months according to the hierarchical procedure ? Has not he been
      > > > hastily suspended without being heard (the Munich invitation made
      > a
      > > > few days before they had to present themselves making it
      > impossible
      > > > to meet) ? Did Fr Nicolas from Brussels recently deprived from
      > > > financial ressources with his matushka and 4 children after 15
      > years
      > > > of service became also « insane » for unknown reasons ? Is the
      > > > answer « no obedience to bishop = no salary = no compassion » ?
      > Fr
      > > > Konstantine having to leave Lesna before beg. of july with his
      > family
      > > > (5 people), after having been called from America and sold his
      > > > house ? I know the cold « he has to face the consequences of his
      > > > choice ».
      > > > - What about the rest of the clergy and laymen supporting them,
      > > > despite the terrible threat of excommunication ? The 3 bishops
      > not
      > > > joining the Sobor Epistle (not surprisingly, bishops from
      > Europe) ?
      > > > Is that Epistle still Sobornoye ?
      > > > Try to reflect about these questions, certainly more essential
      > > > than « is Fr Konstantine « pretending » to have a Russian accent
      > in
      > > > English, or wearing always his kamilavka only to show off ? »,
      > and
      > > > other attacks of that shameful level. Don't you think so , Dear
      > > > members of the list ?
      > > > « Blajeny chistyy sertsem, iako tii Boga uzriat ».
      > > > -------------------------------------
      > > > http://www.roca.org/OA/5/5n.htm
      > > > The Orthodox Revival in Russia as an Inspiration for American
      > > > Orthodoxy
      > > > Excerpt from the Talk of Hieromonk Seraphim at the Santa Cruz
      > > > Conference
      > > > ·..What is happening in Russia today is of interest to us in
      > America
      > > > not specifically as something "Russian," but as something that
      > > > concerns the human soul .... We in America and the free world in
      > > > general have much to learn from what is happening to the human
      > soul
      > > > in Russia today.....And what of us in the West, and particularly
      > in
      > > > America? Do we have any image that explains our situation as well
      > as
      > > > Gulag does that of Russia? I am afraid that there is an image,
      > most
      > > > unflattering to us, which is almost our equivalent of Gulag. It
      > > > is "Disneyland'--an image that exemplifies our carefree love
      > of "fun"
      > > > (a most un-Christian word), our lack of seriousness, our living
      > in a
      > > > literal fool' s paradise, unaware or barely aware of the real
      > meaning
      > > > and seriousness of life.
      > > > Anyone who has met or read the writings of people who come from
      > the
      > > > USSR and, other Communist countries cannot but notice how serious-
      > -
      > > > sometimes to the point of grimness --these people are. I am not
      > > > saying that we should be grim like that--that would be fakery on
      > our
      > > > part--but only that we should realize that our experience in
      > freedom
      > > > and prosperity has to a great extent crippled us spiritually, and
      > > > that therefore we must expose ourselves to and take deeply to
      > heart
      > > > the message of men like Solzhenitsyn. We must study the Gulag and
      > > > make it, to the extent we can, a part of our own experience.
      > > > (After quoting Solzhenitsyn's moving words predicting the coming
      > of
      > > > Gulag to America, Fr. Seraphim passed to the significance of Fr.
      > > > Dimitry Dudko as a voice calling to spiritual awakening, not only
      > to
      > > > Russia but also to the whole world, and above all to Orthodox
      > > > Christians. Fr. Dimitry views life-as we should also--as an
      > > > unrelenting spiritual battle.)
      > > > Seeing reality in this way--that is, being really aware of what
      > is
      > > > happening in the world, and not closing his eyes to it as we in
      > the
      > > > free world do, insulated by our temporary freedom and prosperity,
      > Fr.
      > > > Dimitry speaks in a tone that is urgent and full of crisis. He is
      > > > constantly saying: Russia is perishing, the whole world is
      > perishing-
      > > > let us act, let us start being Christians right now! .... This is
      > > > precisely the tone of true, Apostolic Christianity--the tone of
      > St.
      > > > John of Kronstadt, St. Cosmas of Aitolia, and of all who are on
      > fire
      > > > with Christ's message of salvation .... Our "Disneyland"
      > experience
      > > > in America has not equipped us to understand this sense of
      > urgency,
      > > > but Fr. Dimitry has begun to awaken us ....
      > > > What Solzhenitsyn speaks of in secular terms as Gulag, Fr.
      > Dimitry
      > > > sees in religious terms as Golgatha--the Christian understanding
      > of
      > > > the Soviet experience. The central part of Fr. Dimitry's--and
      > > > contemporary Russia's message,-to us is that all the sufferings
      > > > inflicted by atheism have a meaning: we can find Christ in them...
      > > > Russia's experience is for the whole world, for the martyrs are
      > the
      > > > seed of Christianity, and the Russian New Martyrs are the source
      > of
      > > > new life for Orthodox Christians not only there, but
      > everywhere ....
      > > > Suffering, Golgotha, martyrdom are what we lack, and this is why
      > our
      > > > Christianity is so feeble; but we become stronger by learning of
      > and
      > > > participating in Russia's suffering ....
      > > > Let us have no illusions: the kind of deep Christianity the
      > Orthodox
      > > > martyrs and sufferers of Russia know is not accessible to us. We
      > are
      > > > the products of Disneyland and a society of fakery and plastic
      > > > everything-including plastic Christianity and plastic Orthodoxy.
      > Let
      > > > us be humble enough to recognize this.
      > > > But we can begin to become aware. We can let the sufferings of
      > our
      > > > fellow Orthodox in Russia add a new dimension of seriousness to
      > our
      > > > life. We must seek to find out more about them, and we must begin
      > to
      > > > pray for them. In the early centuries of Christianity the prayer
      > of
      > > > Christians for those undergoing imprisonment, slave-labor, and
      > > > martyrdom was a tremendous source of strength not only for those
      > > > suffering, but for those praying for them as well. It can be the
      > same
      > > > for us today. Let us gather their names and pray for them in
      > church
      > > > and at home ....
      > > > It is a law of the spiritual life that where there is Golgotha--
      > if it
      > > > is truly suffering for Christ--there will be resurrection; about
      > this
      > > > also Fr. Dimitry speaks very movingly. This resurrection occurs
      > first
      > > > of all in human hearts, and we do not need to be too concerned
      > about
      > > > what outward form it might take by God's will. All signs point to
      > the
      > > > fact that we are living at the end of the world, and any outward
      > > > restoration of Holy Russia will be short-lived. But our in. rd
      > > > spiritual resurrection is what we should be striving for, and the
      > > > events in Russia give us hope that, in contrast to all the
      > imitation
      > > > and fake Christianity and Orthodoxy that abounds today, there
      > will
      > > > yet be a resurrection of true, suffering Christianity, not only
      > in
      > > > Russia, but wherever hearts have not become entirely frozen. But
      > we
      > > > must be ready for the suffering that must precede this ....
      > > > Are we in the West ready for it? Golgotha does not mean the
      > > > incidental sufferings we all go through in this life. It is
      > something
      > > > immense and deep, which cannot be relieved by taking an aspirin
      > or
      > > > going to a movie. It is what Russia has gone through and now is
      > > > trying to communicate to us. Let us not be deaf to this message.
      > By
      > > > the prayers of all the New Martyrs of Russia, may God give us the
      > > > strength to endure the trials coming upon us, and to find in them
      > the
      > > > resurrection of our souls !
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      >
      >
      > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Nikolaj
      ... Dear Father Alexander. Stating opinions are not always the same as answering questions. ... Not quite true. Metropolitan Sergii send a letter to the
      Message 2 of 9 , May 29, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        > Nikolai wrote:
        >
        >
        > > I will limit myself to repeat some questions
        > >that I never found the answers to.
        >
        > Many of these questions have been answered before.

        Dear Father Alexander.
        Stating opinions are not always the same as answering questions.

        >
        >
        > >1) Why does ROCOR claim that Metropolitan Sergius was "free" to make his
        > >decisions, while ROCOR claims that the Patriarch Tikhon was not?
        >
        > I have seen no official statement by the ROCOR claiming that Metropolitan
        > Sergius was "free" to make his decisions. However, there is a huge
        > difference between the position of Patr. Tikhon and Metr. Sergius.
        >
        > Patr. Tikhon had officially alerted the bishops of the Church, both in
        > Russia and Abroad, that it was likely that he would be incarcerated and
        > that he would be under great pressure to issue directives that did not
        > express his true position. Therefore, he wrote that directives from him
        > that seemed to have been produced under duress **were to be ignored**.
        > Patriarch Tikhon consistently recognized that the Church was struggling
        > under the oppression of the Bolshevik authorities.
        >
        > Metr. Sergius continually stated that he was totally free of any pressure,
        > and that the Church was not being oppressed in any way.
        >
        Not quite true.
        Metropolitan Sergii send a letter to the Karlovci in oct 1926 saying that he urged them to set up their own administration, since the situation in Moscow was totally unpredictable and they should not rely on help from Moscow for the time being.
        The Synod published this letter, and then Metropolitan Sergii was immediately arrested and sent to prison for 8 months.
        Only then, after being released in 1927 did he issue his declaration of loyalty.

        Yes there was a huge difference between their positions. Patriarch Tikhon actually excommunicated the whole bolshevik leadership and on several occasions opposed the reds openly. Later, when Met Sergii was in the focus, the soviet power was totally in power and could do what they wanted with him. The Patriarchal Church under Sergii was much more weak and divided by the various schisms taking place.
        The declaration of "civil loyalty" issued by Patriarch Tihkon already in 1919, was not issued under the same pressure as the one given by the from prison newly released Met Sergii in 1927.
        By the way, after Patriarch Alexii had replaced Sergii in 1945 this plead for loyalty of 1927 was never repeated in his the appeals from ROC to ROCOR.
        >
        > >2) Why did the "Synod" disobey Patriarch Tikhon 3 times, when he ordered
        > >the "Synod" to dissolve itself?
        >
        > First of all, it was only once, and not three times. And that one Ukaze was
        > issued on the day before Patriarch Tikhon's arrest. He had just finished
        > testifying at the trial of the Moscow priests, and had spoken out very
        > clearly against Bolshevik oppression. To all, it was clear that he would be
        > tried and sentenced to death as had the other Moscow clergy. To imagine
        > that on the day his arrest was imminent, he would be concerned with the
        > situation of the Church Abroad is very unlikely.
        >
        > Another point: that Ukaz, which was not signed by Patriarch Tikhon, but
        > arrived with the signature of another bishop, directed that the Temporary
        > Church Administration be dissolved. The bishops complied, and dissolved
        > that Church Administration, and created a new Church Administration, called
        > the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Patriarch Tikhon, after his
        > release from prison, never directed that this new administration be
        > dissolved. One of his closest associates, Protopresbyter Viktor Vinogradov,
        > testified that Patriarch Tikhon **never** spoke out against the Russian
        > Church Abroad.

        > Finally, that Ukaze dissolving the Temporary Church Administration Abroad,
        > certainly should be considered as one that was made under duress, and,
        > according to Patriarch Tikhon's own instruction about such Ukazes, must be
        > ignored.

        Why is that?
        It was quite obvious that the some of the activities of the synod was damaging to the
        clergy in ROC. For example the 1922 issued appeal of "war against bolshevism".
        This gave the bolsheviks really good reason to propagandize against religion
        in Russia. It was "clear" from the activities of the diaspora church, how the bolsheviks
        "had to deal with Christianity". At least this was used as "propaganda firepower" by the satanic reds.
        Why did Patriarch Tikhon write in his 1923 encycle, (when he was not in prison)
        that he did not know about the setting up of the Synod in Konstantinople?
        Furthermore, the bishops never asked release from Patriarch Tikhon before they went under, first
        The Ecumenical Patriarch and then under the Serbian Patriarch.
        The ecumenical patriarch also supported the grigorians, who made things extremely
        difficult for patriarch Tihkon - and actually at one point recognized the grigoriansas the official Russian Church.
        Was it not strange that the Synod went to him?

        >
        > >3) Why did the "Synod" not seek official release from the Patriarch in
        > >Konstantinople when they left the Juristiction of the Ecumenical
        > >Patriarchate? Because as you may know, the "Synod" was created under his
        > >supervision - not Patriarch Tihkon, who was in jail.
        >
        > First of all, the Ecumenical Patriarchate formally granted the Bishops of
        > the Church Abroad the authority to establish an ecclesiastical structure to
        > administer the needs of all of the Russians in the diaspora. This is the
        > structure that exists to this day. And it was the EP that directed that
        > Archbishop Anastassy leave Constantinople in 1924--not the other way around.

        How could the Patriarch of Konstantinople grant authority to bishops
        serving under the Russian Patriarch without his knowledge?
        As I understand it, this authority was only valid in non-orthodox countries.
        In orthodox countries like Greece, Serbia Bulgaria and so on, the diaspora clergy
        was encouraged to simply join the local churches?

        > Also, Nikolai's statement that the Synod Abroad was founded when Patriarch
        > Tikhon was in jail is factually incorrect. The Synod Abroad was founded in
        > 1920, while Patriarch Tikhon was incarcerated only in 1922.

        Im sorry but - But no it was not. Only in 1923 was ROCOR founded in Serbia.
        And that happened after the synod dissolved itself on the orders
        from the Moscow Patrarchate. It immediately re-created itself in
        the form we know it today.

        Why did the Metropolitan Anastassy send a congratulational letter to
        > >Hitler in 1939 prasing Hitlers politics ?
        >
        > This is a typical red herring, often tossed out by supporters of the Moscow
        > Patriarchate.

        Because it shows that "sergianism" is not limited to a certain juristiction
        or other. It happenes from time to time in all local churches under pressure.
        Not that I would ever defend the sergianism of MP, but the sins of MP
        does not justify the canonical mistakes of other juristictions.

        > Let's take this letter in its true context.
        >
        > First of all, this Address was written in 1938--not 1939.
        >
        > Second, Hitler was the popularly elected leader of a country in which there
        > were 80 parishes belonging to the Church Abroad, served by clergy who were
        > German nationals, and whose parishioners were German nationals. There were
        > three bishops, headed by Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade), himself a native German.

        The Metropolitan later went over to the MP.......!
        And many of the 80 parishes were taken from Met Evlogij.

        > The German government donated to the Russian Church Abroad a large piece of
        > land in a prestigeous area in Berlin to have a new Cathedral built there,
        > and heavily subsidized the construction. Metropolitan Anastassy came from
        > Yugoslavia for the consecration of the new Cathedral, and gave an Address
        > in which he thanked the German state and its head, for their generous
        > assistance in having this Cathedral built. Formal addresses to Heads of
        > State are usually rhetorically quite flowery and complimentary, and this
        > one was as well.

        Indeed it was. An example:
        "Your great achievements on behalf of the German people and towards the
        greatness of the German Empire have made you an example worthy of imitation,
        a model of devotion to one's own people and one's Fatherland, and of how one
        must stand up for one's national and spiritual values."

        > So, reading it 60 years later, in the context of World War II and its
        > horrors, including the concentration camps, is unfair.

        But no more unfair than to keep passing judgement
        to the ROC because of the 1927 declaration.

        This Address was made **before** the War, just two years after the whole world came to the
        > Munich Olympics which Hitler had made as a showpiece for his regime, and,
        > at which, the American delegation, as did all the others, expressed its
        > gratitude to the German State and its Head for their hospitality. The
        > Address of Metropolitan Anastassy was also made at the same time that the
        > former King of England, the Duke of Windsor, visited Germany and had very
        > cordial meetings with Hitler.

        And again - the sins of others do not justify one's own!!!


        > So, in its context, the Address of Metropolitan Anastassy was quite
        > appropriate. Do you think, Nikolaj, that the government of any country that
        > gives land for and massively supports the construction of a magnificent
        > Cathedral for the Church Abroad should not be formally thanked at its
        > consecration?
        >
        This was far more than a "formal thanking".
        There was no need to go as far as he did in praising Hitlers qualities..

        >
        > >5) Why does ROCOR consider itself capable of passing judgement about other
        > >juristictions level of "grace"? From where comes this "supremacy"?
        >
        > Actually, the ROCOR officially has the position of **not** judging the
        > question of grace in other jurisdictions, so the question is nonsensical.
        >
        Really? How come then that the only juristiction where it is being
        claimed that MP has "no grace" is ROCOR? How about Prof Andreyevs book? Is it
        not endorsed by the ROCOR Monastery of Jordanville?

        >
        > >6) Why does ROCOR open parishes on the territory of others juristictions -
        > >this is uncanonical.
        >
        > The Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 gave the Church Abroad the authority to
        > establish parishes all over the world.
        >
        Not true!
        The authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was only valid to establish
        parishes in non-orthodox countries! Its' authority does not include
        the territory of other canonical Patriarchs. And the Ecumenical Patriarch
        recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as such.
        The parishes that "it gave authority" to create was only for the forming of
        parishes for the Russian diaspora - this I believe does not include Russia itself?

        >
        > >7) The Southern High Church Administration is often claimed to be the
        > >origins of ROCOR. This is only partly true, since what we today knows as
        > >ROCOR was created much later in Serbia in Karlovci.
        >
        > This statement makes no sense. The Russian Church Abroad evolved from the
        > Southern High Church Administration, to the Temporary Church
        > Administration, to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. So the
        > **origins** of the ROCOR are definitely to be found in the High Church
        > Administration of the South of Russia.
        >
        Only when you speak about its members.
        The structure was changed and the number of laypeople participating
        also changed, and so was the political influence of various groups
        for example the Higher Monarchist Council.
        There is also the case of Rodzianko, who was kicked out.

        >
        > >Is it not true, that the Administration that Patriarch Tikhon gave his
        > >blessing to, was only the Administration found in southern Russia during
        > >the civil war on Russian territory, and NOT such an administration abroad
        > >as the later self-created ROCOR?
        >
        > Not true. The Patriarchal Ukaze No. 362 does not mention any specific
        > territories at all, and gives the blessing for bishops who are unable to be
        > under the administration of the higher church administration in Moscow for
        > whatever reason, to gather together and form a temporary higher church
        > administration.

        Exactly, but this Ukaze was issued during the civil war.
        To claim that this situation was still the same when ROCOR created
        itself in 1923 in Serbia is not very logical.
        Several of the diaspora bishops and metropolitans abroad went
        over to Moscow without any pressure.
        A very possible reason for this, might certainly have been because of the uncertainty of ROCORs canonical origins.


        > With love in Christ,
        >
        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

        I thank you from my heart for
        your honest reply Father!

        Please remember me in your prayers.
        In Christ
        Nikolaj


        > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • valichka@wanadoo.fr
        ... Dear Nikolaj, forgive me, I am not Valentin but Valentina... ... I would even add before it gets boring for the rest of the list - a good riumochka of
        Message 3 of 9 , May 29, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Nikolaj" <pravoslavie@m...> wrote:

          > Dear Valentin

          Dear Nikolaj, forgive me, I am not Valentin but Valentina...

          > I believe that a lot of these discussions would have a totally
          > different atmosphere about them and a completely different
          > ending to them, if we were face to face - over a cup of tea.

          I would even add before it gets boring for the rest of the list - a
          good "riumochka" of vodka with nice salionye ogurchiki... (guarantee
          for neverending...). Now I am sure to have the majority on MY side
          with my special berries blended vodka (i mean, about the question of
          atmosphere, of course)

          > In Christ
          > Nikolaj
          >
          Good night!
          ValentinA

          ps : just to end up on MY concern – the European question -
          which
          everybody surely forget by now (you have a very good tactic !) as
          «
          the practice of the Church now is to always give preference to the
          South side as opposed to the North side » I am sure to be given
          the
          preference :-)
        • moserd@micron.net
          ... I don t know about that - you may have special berries, but here at my parish we have a killer honey vodka (blended by Vanya the mad chemist) that is just
          Message 4 of 9 , May 29, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In orthodox-synod@y..., valichka@w... wrote:

            > I would even add before it gets boring for the rest of the list - a
            > good "riumochka" of vodka with nice salionye ogurchiki... (guarantee
            > for neverending...). Now I am sure to have the majority on MY side
            > with my special berries blended vodka (i mean, about the question of
            > atmosphere, of course)

            I don't know about that - you may have special berries, but here at my
            parish we have a killer honey vodka (blended by Vanya the mad chemist)
            that is just too good to be true - it has edged out almost everything
            else on the table. Someday we'll have to match them head to head (or
            glass to glass as the case may be).

            Looking forward to a promising contest,

            Priest David Moser
            St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church
          • valichka@wanadoo.fr
            ... a good riumochka of vodka with nice salionye ogurchiki... (guarantee for neverending...). Now I am sure to have the majority on MY side with my special
            Message 5 of 9 , May 29, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@y..., moserd@m... wrote:
              > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., valichka@w... wrote:
              >
              > > I would even add before it gets boring for the rest of the list -
              a good "riumochka" of vodka with nice salionye ogurchiki...
              (guarantee for neverending...). Now I am sure to have the majority on
              MY side with my special berries blended vodka (i mean, about the
              question of atmosphere, of course)
              >
              > I don't know about that - you may have special berries, but here at
              my parish we have a killer honey vodka (blended by Vanya the mad
              chemist) that is just too good to be true - it has edged out almost
              everything else on the table. Someday we'll have to match them head
              to head (or glass to glass as the case may be).
              >
              > Looking forward to a promising contest,
              >
              > Priest David Moser
              > St Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church

              Fr. David, bless
              You're welcome! I don't know about Nikolaj but too bad it's too hot
              round here for bliny, because i ALSO have a very good recipe (not a
              killer's one...).
              I guess now it's clear to everyone on that list why has even Napoleon
              lost his Russian campaign?
              This time, i really close my pc and go to bed. Don't forget me in
              your (morning?) prayers.
              Valentine from Southern Europe
              ps : i don't know where is Fr Maximos located, but i think i am still
              more in the South than you :-)
            • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
              ... It is absurd to link the arrest of Metr. Sergius to the publication of his letter by the Synod Abroad. The bolsheviks had plenty of reasons to arrest Metr.
              Message 6 of 9 , May 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Nikolaj wrote:



                >Metropolitan Sergii send a letter to the Karlovci in oct 1926 saying that
                >he urged them to set up their own administration, since the situation in
                >Moscow was totally unpredictable and they should not rely on help from
                >Moscow for the time being.
                >The Synod published this letter, and then Metropolitan Sergii was
                >immediately arrested and sent to prison for 8 months.
                >Only then, after being released in 1927 did he issue his declaration of
                >loyalty.

                It is absurd to link the arrest of Metr. Sergius to the publication of his
                letter by the Synod Abroad. The bolsheviks had plenty of reasons to arrest
                Metr. Sergius, as they had arrested Metropolitans Peter, Agathangel, and
                Kyrill prior to that. Were the arrests of these previous Patriarchal Locum
                Tenentes also due to something done by the Synod Abroad?




                >Yes there was a huge difference between their positions. Patriarch Tikhon
                >actually excommunicated the whole bolshevik leadership

                well, he couldn't excommunicate anyone who was not a member of the Russian
                Orthodox Church--and the "whole bolshevik leadership" were declared
                atheists, the majority of whom did not have a Russian Orthodox background,
                as you know well.


                >and on several occasions opposed the reds openly.

                He spoke out against injustices committed by the reds against the Church
                and its faithful. He did, quite early on, state that the clergy must be
                totally apolitical, and that all of the faithful must follow the laws of
                the State as long as these laws did not violate their Christian consciences.


                >Later, when Met Sergii was in the focus, the soviet power was totally in
                >power and could do what they wanted with him.

                I think that the Soviet power was totally in power by 1920, long before 1927.



                >The Patriarchal Church under Sergii was much more weak and divided by the
                >various schisms taking place.

                I think that there was no schism more divisive than the schisms of the
                Renovationists and Living Church groups--and that occurred during the time
                of Patriarch Tikhon.


                >The declaration of "civil loyalty" issued by Patriarch Tihkon already in
                >1919, was not issued under the same pressure as the one given by the from
                >prison newly released Met Sergii in 1927.

                We do not know what pressure Metr. Sergius was under in 1927. It was likely
                extremely heavy--as it was on Patr. Tikhon, as well. But Patr. Tikhon did
                not cave in on the most important questions--the actual administration of
                the Church was not handed over to the Soviet State, and Patr. Tikhon never
                praised the bolsheviks for their "great benevolence" to the Church, as did
                Metr. Sergius.



                >By the way, after Patriarch Alexii had replaced Sergii in 1945 this plead
                >for loyalty of 1927 was never repeated in his the appeals from ROC to ROCOR.

                You are confusing two things. Patriarch Tikhon told the clergy and the
                faithful to be totally apolitical and to obey the laws of the State.

                Metropolitan Sergius required that all of the clergy of the Church Abroad
                sign an Oath of Loyalty to the Soviet State, and refrain from any public
                criticism of it or its actions.

                And this demand for an oath of loyalty by the emigre clergy was repeated
                many times during the time of Patriarch Alexei--in 1945, in 1948, and many
                years later. I, personally, received an appeal to "rejoin with the Mother
                Church" in 1975 or 1976 (this was sent out to all of the clergy of the
                Church Abroad by the Moscow Patriaarchate)--and it certainly restated the
                demand that I sign a pledge of loyalty to the Soviet State and refrain from
                criticizing it.





                >Why is that?
                >It was quite obvious that the some of the activities of the synod was
                >damaging to the
                >clergy in ROC. For example the 1922 issued appeal of "war against bolshevism".
                >This gave the bolsheviks really good reason to propagandize against religion
                >in Russia. It was "clear" from the activities of the diaspora church, how
                >the bolsheviks
                >"had to deal with Christianity". At least this was used as "propaganda
                >firepower" by the satanic reds.

                First of all, the bolsheviks needed no "really good reason" to propagandize
                against religion in Russia. They started doing this from day one. By 1922,
                a huge number of priests and bishops had been arrested, sent into harsh
                exile or executed. This was not the result of any actions by the Church
                Abroad. It was part of the bolshevik goal to destroy all religion. The fact
                that the bolsheviks used statements made by the Church Abroad as propaganda
                firepower does not change the essence of the war against religion that was
                started in 1917--not 1922.




                >Why did Patriarch Tikhon write in his 1923 encycle, (when he was not in
                >prison)
                >that he did not know about the setting up of the Synod in Konstantinople?

                How in the world could that statement be taken seriously, when Patriarch
                Tikhon, in 1921, sent a formal greeting and blessing to the First
                All-Diasporan (Vsezarubezhnyj) Sobor. That document is found in the massive
                "Akty Patriarkha Tikhona." The Patriarch also confirmed the appointment of
                Metropolitan Platon to the North American Diocese by the Russian Church
                Abroad. How could anyone believe that he "did not know" of its existense?

                Also, Izvestia published in 1924 an excerpt from a letter by Patriarch
                Tikhon to Metropolitan Anthony in which he said concerning statements that
                had been published saying that he, the Patriarch, was walling himself off
                from the emigre counter-revolutionaries"" "I wrote all of this for the
                authorities. You stay and continue working." "Vsyo eto ja napisal dlya
                vlastej. A Ty sidi i rabotaj."



                >Furthermore, the bishops never asked release from Patriarch Tikhon before
                >they went under, first
                >The Ecumenical Patriarch and then under the Serbian Patriarch.

                Actually, the whole point of Patriarch Tikhon's Ukase No. 362 was to define
                how bishops were to act if they were **unable** to freely communicate with
                the Patriarchal administration. So, with the Bishops abroad being unable to
                freely communicate with the Patriarchal central administration in Russia,
                how could they "ask for release"?

                The fact that Patriarch Tikhon sent his greeting and formal blessing to the
                All-Diasporan Council in Sremski Karlovtsy in 1921 is a de facto
                recognition and blessing of Church Abroad's existense under the protection
                of first the Ecumenical Patriarch and then the Serbian Patriarch.



                >The ecumenical patriarch also supported the grigorians, who made things
                >extremely
                >difficult for patriarch Tihkon - and actually at one point recognized the
                >grigoriansas the official Russian Church.
                >Was it not strange that the Synod went to him?

                This is totally confused. The future bishops of the Church Abroad, many
                clergy and several hundered thousand of the faithful together with remnants
                of the White Army under General Wrangel, left in a convoy from Crimea to
                Constantinople in 1920. That was where they ended up. Of course, the
                bishops of the Church Abroad would appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarchate
                for protection--they were sitting at his door!

                And the recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Living Church
                (not the Gregorians) came much later, in 1922-3 during the incarceration of
                Patriarch Tikhon. How can this have affected what happened in 1920?




                >How could the Patriarch of Konstantinople grant authority to bishops
                >serving under the Russian Patriarch without his knowledge?

                These were bishops **in exile** due to political circumstances, who
                appeared on the Patriarch of Constantinople's doorstep together with
                hundreds of clergy and several hundred thousand Russian refugees. Of
                course, the EP granted them shelter. There was no free communication with
                Patriarch Tikhon at this time (he was under house arrest and all
                communications were screened by the bolsheviks).



                >As I understand it, this authority was only valid in non-orthodox countries.
                >In orthodox countries like Greece, Serbia Bulgaria and so on, the diaspora
                >clergy
                >was encouraged to simply join the local churches?

                There is no limitation in Ukase No. 9084 of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on
                the countries to which it applied: it says that the Russian bishops were
                given the authority to "form an administration, a temporary ecclesiastical
                epitropy, for **all** the needs of the Russian faithful." The Church Abroad
                did, while in Constantinople, report to the Patriarch of Constantinople on
                all its actions, which included:

                1) In January 1921 the Church Abroad appointed Metropolitan Evlogy the
                Administrator of all Russian parishes in Western Europe, since these
                parishes could no longer be administered by the Metropolitan of St.
                Petersburg, as had been the case before the Revolution. On March 26, 1921,
                the Church Abroad ordered that all parishes in Western Europe commemorate
                the name of Metropolitan Evlogy at all services, instead of that of
                Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd. On April 8, 1921, Ukaze No. 424 of the
                Patriarchal Synod and Sobor in Moscow **confirmed** the appointment of
                Metropolitan Evlogy by the Church Abroad.

                2) In May, 1921, there was held in Constantinople a Sobor of Bishops of the
                Church Abroad. This Sobor was held under the Presidency of an offical
                delegate of the Patriarch of Constantinople. At this Sobor, the Bishops of
                the Church Abroad formally assumed ecclesiastical direction of the entire
                Russian diaspora, and the "Supreme Ecclesiastical Administrartion of the
                Russian Orthodox Church Abroad" was formally constituted.

                3) And, regarding the question of whether its authority extended to
                non-Orthodox countries only, on August 18/31, 1921, the SEAROCA appointed
                Bishop Seraphim of Lyubna to be the administrator of all Russian parishes
                in Bulgaria. On September 21/October 3, 1921, the SEAROCA appointed
                Metropolitan Anthony to be the administrator of all Russian parishes in Serbia.

                And all of this was done with the knowledge of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.




                > > Also, Nikolai's statement that the Synod Abroad was founded when Patriarch
                > > Tikhon was in jail is factually incorrect. The Synod Abroad was founded in
                > > 1920, while Patriarch Tikhon was incarcerated only in 1922.
                >
                >Im sorry but - But no it was not. Only in 1923 was ROCOR founded in Serbia.
                >And that happened after the synod dissolved itself on the orders
                >from the Moscow Patrarchate. It immediately re-created itself in
                >the form we know it today.

                This is picking nits. The Church Abroad has as its founding date 1920, not
                1923. From its origin, and to this day, it has considered itself to be the
                supreme ecclesiastical authority for all Russian parishes abroad. The minor
                name changes that occurred in 1920-1923 do not affect its essential nature
                or position.



                >Why did the Metropolitan Anastassy send a congratulational letter to
                > > >Hitler in 1939 prasing Hitlers politics ?
                > >
                > > This is a typical red herring, often tossed out by supporters of the
                > Moscow
                > > Patriarchate.
                >
                >Because it shows that "sergianism" is not limited to a certain juristiction
                >or other. It happenes from time to time in all local churches under pressure.
                >Not that I would ever defend the sergianism of MP, but the sins of MP
                >does not justify the canonical mistakes of other juristictions.


                There is no way that Metropolitan Anastassy's address can be compared to
                Sergianism. Sergianism's essence is that one may lie in order to "save" the
                Church. Those lies include outright denial of the persecution of the
                Church, and the denial of its martyrs. (The Sergianists continually, from
                1927, right up to 1990, claimed that *no one* had been killed for their
                faith in the Soviet Union, and that those who had been imprisoned or
                executed were sanctioned by the government solely for their political actions).

                Where does one find such lies in the Address of Metropolitan Anastassy?



                > > Let's take this letter in its true context.
                > >
                > > First of all, this Address was written in 1938--not 1939.
                > >
                > > Second, Hitler was the popularly elected leader of a country in which
                > there
                > > were 80 parishes belonging to the Church Abroad, served by clergy who were
                > > German nationals, and whose parishioners were German nationals. There were
                > > three bishops, headed by Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade), himself a native
                > German.
                >
                >The Metropolitan later went over to the MP.......!

                That has nothing to do with the situation of the Church in Germany in 1938.


                >And many of the 80 parishes were taken from Met Evlogij.

                So what? The fact that the German government's courts declared that the
                Church Abroad was the sole legal ecclesiastical administration for Russian
                parishes in Germany was **even more reason** for the Head of the Church
                Abroad to thank the German government. In the Synod's view, the German
                government had assisted in returning parishes to their lawful owner--the
                Synod, and out of the hands of the schismatic Evlogians.




                > > The German government donated to the Russian Church Abroad a large
                > piece of
                > > land in a prestigeous area in Berlin to have a new Cathedral built there,
                > > and heavily subsidized the construction. Metropolitan Anastassy came from
                > > Yugoslavia for the consecration of the new Cathedral, and gave an Address
                > > in which he thanked the German state and its head, for their generous
                > > assistance in having this Cathedral built. Formal addresses to Heads of
                > > State are usually rhetorically quite flowery and complimentary, and this
                > > one was as well.
                >
                >Indeed it was. An example:
                >"Your great achievements on behalf of the German people and towards the
                >greatness of the German Empire have made you an example worthy of imitation,
                >a model of devotion to one's own people and one's Fatherland, and of how one
                >must stand up for one's national and spiritual values."

                An unbiased historian would confirm that Hitler did restore German's pride
                and devotion to their Fatherland. He ended inflation, made the trains run
                on time, built the first Autobahns, supported the development of the
                "people's car" (Volkswagen) which is still popular more than 60 years later
                and lots of other things that were positive. This was all wiped out later
                by his wars of aggression, and the horrors of the death camps. But none of
                that had happened in 1938.




                > > So, reading it 60 years later, in the context of World War II and its
                > > horrors, including the concentration camps, is unfair.
                >
                >But no more unfair than to keep passing judgement
                >to the ROC because of the 1927 declaration.

                Absolutely not. Metropolitan Anastassy's address was an expression of
                gratitude for things done to the **benefit** of the Church (such as the
                construction of a magnificent cathedral and the return of parishes held by
                schismatics). Metr. Sergius' Declaration was a total lie--thanking the
                Soviet State for its "benevolence" to the Church, when the State had
                already destroyed thousands of churches and massacred millions for their faith.

                Can't you see the diference between the two?





                >This Address was made **before** the War, just two years after the whole
                >world came to the
                > > Munich Olympics which Hitler had made as a showpiece for his regime, and,
                > > at which, the American delegation, as did all the others, expressed its
                > > gratitude to the German State and its Head for their hospitality. The
                > > Address of Metropolitan Anastassy was also made at the same time that the
                > > former King of England, the Duke of Windsor, visited Germany and had very
                > > cordial meetings with Hitler.
                >
                >And again - the sins of others do not justify one's own!!!


                The world's perception of Hitler in 1938 was a very different one. There
                were huge numbers of Hitler supporters in Great Britain and in the United
                States, who hels massive rallies in support of him.



                > > So, in its context, the Address of Metropolitan Anastassy was quite
                > > appropriate. Do you think, Nikolaj, that the government of any country
                > that
                > > gives land for and massively supports the construction of a magnificent
                > > Cathedral for the Church Abroad should not be formally thanked at its
                > > consecration?
                > >
                >This was far more than a "formal thanking".
                >There was no need to go as far as he did in praising Hitlers qualities..

                If President Bush was to authorize the donation of a prime piece of
                property in Washington D.C. for a new Cathedral of the Church Abroad, and
                have the government massively support the cost of its construction, you
                better believe that the speeches at its consecration would be praising
                Bush's qualities in equally flowery language.



                > >
                > > >5) Why does ROCOR consider itself capable of passing judgement about
                > other
                > > >juristictions level of "grace"? From where comes this "supremacy"?
                > >
                > > Actually, the ROCOR officially has the position of **not** judging the
                > > question of grace in other jurisdictions, so the question is nonsensical.
                > >
                >Really? How come then that the only juristiction where it is being
                >claimed that MP has "no grace" is ROCOR?

                Actually, I believe that every Greek Old Calendarist jurisdiction (with the
                exception of the Cyprianites) believes the Moscow Patriarchate to be
                without grace. So does the jurisdiction of "Metropolitan" Valentine of
                Suzdal. Also, that is the position of the majority of catacomb
                jurisdictions in Russia, as well.



                >How about Prof Andreyevs book? Is it
                >not endorsed by the ROCOR Monastery of Jordanville?

                No. It was reprinted by Monastery Press in Canada, run by Fr. Andrew
                Kencis, who republished it because it agrees with his narrow views.

                For another view, take a look at Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko)'s book,
                "Motives of My Life"--published in Jordanville (in two editions) with the
                blessing of Archbishop Averky and with an Imprimatur by the Synod's
                Official Censor Librorum, Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. In it you will
                find Archbishop Vitaly writing: "with deep reverence to the struggle of
                Patriarch Sergius" (s glubokim prekloneniem pered podvigom Patriarkha
                Sergija," and at least twenty references to the Moscow Patriarchate as the
                "Mother Church."



                > >
                > > >6) Why does ROCOR open parishes on the territory of others
                > juristictions -
                > > >this is uncanonical.
                > >
                > > The Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1920 gave the Church Abroad the
                > authority to
                > > establish parishes all over the world.
                > >
                >Not true!
                >The authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was only valid to establish
                >parishes in non-orthodox countries!
                >Its' authority does not include
                >the territory of other canonical Patriarchs.

                See above, where the Church Abroad, under the supervision of the Ecumenical
                Patriarchate, appointed Bishops to administer Russian parishes in Serbia
                and Bulgaria.




                > And the Ecumenical Patriarch
                >recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as such.
                >The parishes that "it gave authority" to create was only for the forming of
                >parishes for the Russian diaspora - this I believe does not include Russia
                >itself?

                The establishment of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
                Russia **in Russia** is problematical. The intentions were pure, however,
                since this was the only way to tend to the needs of the Orthodox Christians
                of Russia who refused to submit to the KGB-directed Moscow Patriarchate.
                The Synod finally acceded to the woeful cries of those faithful, who had
                been commemorating Metropolitan Philaret and then Metropolitan Vitaly for
                many years already.



                > >
                > > >7) The Southern High Church Administration is often claimed to be the
                > > >origins of ROCOR. This is only partly true, since what we today knows as
                > > >ROCOR was created much later in Serbia in Karlovci.
                > >
                > > This statement makes no sense. The Russian Church Abroad evolved from the
                > > Southern High Church Administration, to the Temporary Church
                > > Administration, to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. So the
                > > **origins** of the ROCOR are definitely to be found in the High Church
                > > Administration of the South of Russia.
                > >
                >Only when you speak about its members.
                >The structure was changed and the number of laypeople participating
                >also changed, and so was the political influence of various groups
                >for example the Higher Monarchist Council.
                >There is also the case of Rodzianko, who was kicked out.

                None of this affects the essence of the Church Abroad as the supreme
                ecclesiastical authority for all the Russians in diaspora. Neither the
                name, nor the internal administrative structure matter.



                > >
                > > >Is it not true, that the Administration that Patriarch Tikhon gave his
                > > >blessing to, was only the Administration found in southern Russia during
                > > >the civil war on Russian territory, and NOT such an administration abroad
                > > >as the later self-created ROCOR?
                > >
                > > Not true. The Patriarchal Ukaze No. 362 does not mention any specific
                > > territories at all, and gives the blessing for bishops who are unable
                > to be
                > > under the administration of the higher church administration in Moscow for
                > > whatever reason, to gather together and form a temporary higher church
                > > administration.
                >
                >Exactly, but this Ukaze was issued during the civil war.
                >To claim that this situation was still the same when ROCOR created
                >itself in 1923 in Serbia is not very logical.

                Again, you are totally wrong on this. The Church Abroad was founded
                immediately upon the emigration of Russians after the civil war. Its first
                organizational meeting was actually on board a Russian warship, docked at
                the port of Constantinople. The Church Abroad as constituted in 1923 is an
                organic continuation of the Church founded in 1920--not a new Church.





                >Several of the diaspora bishops and metropolitans abroad went
                >over to Moscow without any pressure.


                Some of them (the bishops in the Far East) did this under total oppression
                under Soviet occupation.




                >A very possible reason for this, might certainly have been because of the
                >uncertainty of ROCORs canonical origins.

                Absolutely ungrounded speculation.

                Neither the Patriarch of Constantinople, nor the Patriarch of Serbia, nor
                the Archbishop of Athens, nor the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and
                Alexandria had problems with ROCOR's canonical origins in 1921. And neither
                did the Patriarch of Moscow.



                With love in Christ,

                Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
              • valichka@wanadoo.fr
                ... wrote: Fr Alexander , Bless ! I found useful to add some extracts of the very letters quoted in your exchanges with Nikolaj. They were written in Russian.
                Message 7 of 9 , May 30, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
                  wrote:
                  Fr Alexander , Bless !
                  I found useful to add some extracts of the very letters quoted in
                  your exchanges with Nikolaj.
                  They were written in Russian. Hopefully a good soul could translate
                  into English for list-general interest, or ask someone from your
                  neighbourhood understanding Russian ?
                  Sorry to write with latin characters, but i was not sure cyrillic
                  would be readable (could somebody can confirm to me that point ?)
                  My last comment : interesting to read it under the light of events
                  happening nowadays.
                  Which leads us back to the theme of my message Nr. 4750.
                  Valentina, by the Mediterranean Sea

                  > Nikolaj wrote:
                  > >Metropolitan Sergii send a letter to the Karlovci in oct 1926
                  saying that he urged them to set up their own administration, since
                  the situation in Moscow was totally unpredictable and they should not
                  rely on help from Moscow for the time being. The Synod published this
                  letter, and then Metropolitan Sergii was immediately arrested and
                  sent to prison for 8 months. Only then, after being released in 1927
                  did he issue his declaration of loyalty.
                  > It is absurd to link the arrest of Metr. Sergius to the
                  publication of his letter by the Synod Abroad. The bolsheviks had
                  plenty of reasons to arrest Metr. Sergius, as they had arrested
                  Metropolitans Peter, Agathangel, and Kyrill prior to that. Were the
                  arrests of these previous Patriarchal Locum Tenentes also due to
                  something done by the Synod Abroad?
                  > >Yes there was a huge difference between their positions.
                  Patriarch Tikhon actually excommunicated the whole bolshevik
                  leadership
                  > well, he couldn't excommunicate anyone who was not a member of
                  the Russian Orthodox Church--and the "whole bolshevik leadership"
                  were declared atheists, the majority of whom did not have a Russian
                  Orthodox background, as you know well.

                  Not quite correct rethorics. See extract of this letter from
                  Patriarche Tikhon 19.01.1918 anathemizing the bolcheviks :
                  « Poslanya Patriarkha Tikhona, Anafematstvovanye bolchevikov -
                  From
                  the book « Ruskaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov V sovetskoye vremia :
                  materialy i dokumenty , Moskva 1995, p.110-111 :
                  « Opomnites, bezumny, prekratite vachy krovavye raspravy. Ved to,
                  chto tvorite vy, ne tolko jestokoye dalo, eto poistine dalo
                  satanitskoe, za kotoroe podlejyte vy ogniu geenskomu v kyzni
                  buduchei – zagrobnoy i strachnomu prokliatiu potomstva v jyzni
                  nastoiachej – zemnoy.
                  Vlastiu dannoju Nam ot Boga, zaprechaiem vam pristupat k Tainam
                  Khristovym, anafematstvuem vas, esli tolko vy nosite echio imena
                  khristianskoe i khotia po rojdeniu svoemu prinadlejyte k Tserkvi
                  Pravoslavnoy.
                  Zaklinaem i fsekh vas, vernykh chad Pravoslavnoy Tserkvi Khristovoy,
                  ne vstupat s takovymi izvergami roda chelovecheskogo v kakoe-libo
                  obchenye : « Izmite zlago ot vas samekh » (Kor. 5,13) ».

                  > >and on several occasions opposed the reds openly.
                  > He spoke out against injustices committed by the reds against
                  the Church and its faithful. He did, quite early on, state that the
                  clergy must be totally apolitical, and that all of the faithful must
                  follow the laws of the State as long as these laws did not violate
                  their Christian consciences.
                  > >Later, when Met Sergii was in the focus, the soviet power was
                  totally in power and could do what they wanted with him.
                  > I think that the Soviet power was totally in power by 1920, long
                  before 1927.
                  > >The Patriarchal Church under Sergii was much more weak and
                  divided by the various schisms taking place.
                  > I think that there was no schism more divisive than the schisms
                  of the Renovationists and Living Church groups--and that occurred
                  during the time of Patriarch Tikhon.

                  I would add : the Patriarchal Church did not exist any more as there
                  was NO patriarche since april 24.
                  Don't forget in the ROC, there was not Patriarche between 1700
                  and
                  1917, only due to Tsar Muchenik Nikolai in favour of his
                  restauration. Met. Serguy, was « elected » « patriarche
                  » in 1943.
                  About that « free and representative » election, read «
                  Russkaya
                  Tserkov pered litsom gospodstuiuchago zla » Jordanville 1991, Ep
                  Grigori Grabbe (str. 81 – 85)

                  > >The declaration of "civil loyalty" issued by Patriarch Tihkon
                  already in 1919, was not issued under the same pressure as the one
                  given by the from prison newly released Met Sergii in 1927.
                  > We do not know what pressure Metr. Sergius was under in 1927. It
                  was likely extremely heavy--as it was on Patr. Tikhon, as well. But
                  Patr. Tikhon did not cave in on the most important questions--the
                  actual administration of the Church was not handed over to the Soviet
                  State, and Patr. Tikhon never praised the bolsheviks for their "great
                  benevolence" to the Church, as did Metr. Sergius.

                  Met. Sergius was arrested in Dec. 26 and freed in march 27. His
                  Declaration was issued in july 27.
                  About the « praise » :
                  Extracts of Met Serge interview 15/2/1930 :
                  «… Gonenia na religiu v CCCP nikogda ne bylo i net
                  … Nekotorye tserkvi zakryvaiutsia, no proizvoditsia eto zakrytie
                  ne
                  po initsiative vlasti, a po jelaniu naselenia
                  … Repressii, osuchestliaemye sovetskim pravitelstvom v otnochenii
                  veruiuchykh i sviachennoslujytelej, primeniaiutsia k nim otniud ne za
                  ikh religioznye ubejdenya, a v obchem poriadke, kak i drugim
                  grajdanam za raznye protivopravitelsvennye deianya. K sojaleniu ?
                  daje do sego vremeni nekotorye iz nas ne mogut poniat, chto k staromu
                  net vozvrata, i prodoljaiut sebia vesti sebia, kak polichiteskye
                  protivniki sovetskogo gosudarstva
                  … Sviachennoslujyteliami ne zaprechiaetsia otpravlenye
                  religioznihk
                  slujb
                  …. V upravlenyiakh vsekh nachykh organov do sikh por ne bylo
                  nikakikh
                  stesnenyi… (Izvestia, 16/2/1930)

                  10/4/1945 – Mit. Nikolaj writes about a visit with Patriarche
                  Alexis
                  to Stalin :
                  « … My byli priglacheny v priomnoy zal i, kak tolko uvideli
                  Iossifa
                  V, prosto i serdechno s ulybkoj privetsvovavchego nas, my, kak i pri
                  pervom priome u nachego velikogo Vojdia, srazu pochutstvovali sebia
                  vo vlasti etoj obiatelnoj i teploj prostoty obrachenyja, za kotoroj
                  skryvaetsia podlinnoe velichie nositelia etoj vnechnej prostoty.
                  Polnye schastia videt litsom k litsu togo, odno imia kotorogo s
                  liuboviu i blagogoveniem proiznositsia ne tolko vo fsiekh ugolkakh
                  nachej strany, no i vo fsiekh svobodoliubivykh i miroliubivykh
                  stranakh. …. Beseda byla soverchenno neprenujdennoj besedoj otsa
                  s
                  detmi… » J.M.P.1945, N°5 ct 25-26.

                  9/3/1953 Patriarkh Moskovsky Aleksi pered Panikhidoj po I.V. Stalina,
                  v Patriarchem sobore v den ego pokhoron : « ……..i nachemu
                  vozliublennomu i nezabyvaemomu I.V. my molitvenno s glubokoj
                  goriachej liuboviu vozglachaem vechnuiu pamat ».

                  Oct. 1977 – Mitropolit Talinski i Estonski Aleksi
                  (futurePatriarche)
                  about the new Constitution CCCP :
                  ….. « Svobodnoe i nevozbrannoe soverchenye bogoslujenij,
                  propoved,
                  udovletvorenye religoiznykh zaprosov veruiuchikh vot chto
                  kharakterizuet nachu tserkovnuiu jyzn i deiatelnost. Dlia etogo u
                  Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Tserkvi i drugikh tserkvej i religioznykh
                  obedinenij v CCCP imeiutsia fse uslovia. Nachnu s tovo chto nacha
                  Tserkov imeet prekrasnye khramy……. Mojet takje arendovat ili
                  stroit
                  novye molitvenye zdania. Nachy tserkovnye organizatsii imeiut ..
                  sredstv, mogut organizovivat predpriatija dlia proizvodstva svechej,
                  tserkovnoj utrari, oblachenij, ikon, i drugikh predmetov
                  bogoslujebnovo obikhoda. MP izdaiot jurnaly, kalendri, molitvenniki,
                  knigi… U nas imeiutsia svoi dukhovnye uchebnye zavedenija,
                  etc…
                  … Znamenatelno, chto vsenarodnoe obsujdenija proekta i prinatie
                  novoj
                  Konstitutsii osuchestvliaetsia v kanun slavnogo iubileja 60-letia
                  Velikoj Oktiabrskoj sotsialisticheskoj revoliutsii. Fse veruiuchye
                  grajdane nachej strany goriacho odobriaiut proekt novoj Konstitutsii
                  CCCP, ibo on otvechaet interesam liudej fsiekh sloev nachevo
                  obchestva i garantiruet fsem grajdanam Strany Sovetov, v tom chisle i
                  veruiuchym, prinadlejachym k razlichnym tserkvam i religioznym
                  obedenenyam, vse svobody i prava, kakimi polzuetsia chelovek
                  razvitovo sotsialisticheskovo obchestva ». (golos rodiny 1977,

                  38, ct. 13-14)
                  Announcing ecumenism ?…
                  Read more about Patriarche Alexij « Segodniachnij Patriarkh
                  Aleksii
                  II – Sobor 1971 – Raskaz Ep. Vasilija Krivochejna » (MP)

                  >By the way, after Patriarch Alexii had replaced Sergii in 1945
                  this plead for loyalty of 1927 was never repeated in his the appeals
                  from ROC to ROCOR.
                  > You are confusing two things. Patriarch Tikhon told the clergy
                  and the faithful to be totally apolitical and to obey the laws of the
                  State.Metropolitan Sergius required that all of the clergy of the
                  Church Abroad sign an Oath of Loyalty to the Soviet State, and
                  refrain from any public xriticism of it or its actions.

                  Useful to re-read extracts of Met. Serguy Declaration of 27/7/1927 :
                  « My khotim byt pravoslavnymi i v to vremia soznavat Sovetskiy
                  Soiuz
                  nachej granjdanskoj rodinoj, radosti i uspekhi kotoroj – nachy
                  radosti i uspekhi, a neudachi – nachy neudachi. Fsiakij udar,
                  napravlenyj v Soiuz, bud to vojna, bojkot, kakoe-nibud obchestvenoye
                  bedstvie ili prosto ubiistvo izza ugla, podobnoe Varchavskomu,
                  soznaiotsia nami kak udar, napravlenyj v nas. Ostavaias
                  pravoslavnymi, my pomnim svoj dolg byt grajdanami Soiuza ne tolko iz
                  strakha, no i po sovesti ! kak uchil nas apostol (Rim. 13,5)
                  ………………….My potrebovali ot zagranichnogo dukhovenstva dat
                  pismenee
                  obiazatelstvo v polnoj loialnosti k Sovetskomu pravitelstvu vo vsej
                  svoiej obchestvennoj deiatelnosti. Ne davche takovo obiazatelstva ili
                  naruchyvchye ego budut iskliucheny iz sostava klira, podvedomstvenno
                  Moskovskoj Patriarkhii…….. » Signed : « Za Patriarchevo
                  Mestobliustitelia Serguy… »
                  Mit. Sergyu usurpated the title of « Mestobliustitel » (locum
                  tenens). The Mestobliustitel wasMitropolit Piotr Krutitskyj, arrested
                  and deported, and dided in a camp. Mit. Serge Was only «
                  Zamestitel
                  Mestobliustitelia ». Already in 1926, with Mit. Iossif
                  Petrogradskij
                  blessing and a few bishops, the Catacomb Church began to organize.

                  Declaration to which he received the reply of the Synod of our
                  bishops 27/8/1927 :
                  Sobor Arkhiereev zagranitsej zaiavil « Rechitelno otvergnut
                  predlojenye mitropolita Sergya i ego Sinoda dat podpisku o vernosti
                  Sovetskou pravitelstvu, kak nekanonicheskoe i vesma vrednoe dlia
                  Sviatoj Tserkvi »…
                  On 9/5/1928, by Decree N° 104 issued by the Moscow Synod, the
                  Sobor
                  and Synod of the bishops abroad were abolished and all there acts
                  declared invalid(which of course had no concrete results).

                  > And this demand for an oath of loyalty by the emigre clergy was
                  repeated many times during the time of Patriarch Alexei--in 1945

                  10/8/1945 Obrachenye patriarkha Aleksia « k arkhipastyriam i kliru
                  tak nazyvaiemoj Karlovatskoj grupy » predlagaya ej prinesti
                  pokaianija.
                  To which Mitropolit Anastasii replied in oct. 1945 : « Kak
                  episkopy,
                  tak i kliriki i miriane, podchinaiuchiesia iurisdiktsii Zagranichnego
                  Arkhiereskogo Sobora i Sinoda ? nikogda ne schitali i ne schitaiut
                  sebia « nakhodiachimisia v ogrady Pravoslavnoj Ruskoj Tserkvi
                  », ibo
                  nikogda ne razryvali kanonicheskogo, molitvennogo i dukhovnogo
                  edineniya so svoiej Materiu Tserkvi.
                  Predstaviteli Zarubejnoj Tserkvi vynujdeny byli prervat obchenye
                  tolko s Byschej Tserkovnoj vlastiu v Rossii, poskolko ona sama stala
                  otstupat ot puti Khristovoj Istiny i Pravdy i cherez to otryvatsia
                  dukhovno ot pravoslavnogo episkopstva Tserkvi Rossiiskoj, o kotoroj
                  my ne perestaem voznosit svoi molenija za kajdym bogoslujeniem , i
                  vmeste, i ot veruiuchego naroda russkogo, izdrevle ostvchegosia «
                  khranitelem blagochestija na Rusi ».

                  Not a bad bibliography : V.S. RUSSAK « Istoria Ruskoj Tserkvi »
                  1991,
                  NY.
                  About relations Serbian/Russian Church, read « Otnochenye Serbskoj
                  Tserkvi k R.P.Ts.Z. – Russkaya Tserkov v Jugoslaviju (1920-1940)
                  –
                  Kosik V.I. Moskva 2000 (izdanie Bogoslovsk. Instituta MP).

                  , in 1948, and many years later. I, personally, received an appeal
                  to "rejoin with the Mother Church" in 1975 or 1976 (this was sent out
                  to all of the clergy of the Church Abroad by the Moscow
                  Patriaarchate)--and it certainly restated the demand that I sign a
                  pledge of loyalty to the Soviet State and refrain from criticizing it.
                  > >Why is that?
                  > >It was quite obvious that the some of the activities of the
                  synod was damaging to the clergy in ROC. For example the 1922 issued
                  appeal of "war against bolshevism". This gave the bolsheviks really
                  good reason to propagandize against religion in Russia. It
                  was "clear" from the activities of the diaspora church, how the
                  bolsheviks "had to deal with Christianity". At least this was used
                  as "propaganda firepower" by the satanic reds.
                  > First of all, the bolsheviks needed no "really good reason" to
                  propagandize against religion in Russia. They started doing this from
                  day one. By 1922, a huge number of priests and bishops had been
                  arrested, sent into harsh exile or executed. This was not the result
                  of any actions by the Church Abroad. It was part of the bolshevik
                  goal to destroy all religion. The fact that the bolsheviks used
                  statements made by the Church Abroad as propaganda firepower does not
                  change the essence of the war against religion that was started in
                  1917--not 1922.

                  Nikolaj forgets about the Ukaz of 5/5/1922 « zakrytii Vyschego
                  Tserkovnogo Upravlenija zagranitsej », issued by Patriarche Tikhon
                  only upon insistance of the bolcheviks who got mad on the Upravlebye
                  acts, and with the hope of a less repression against Church in
                  Russia. But it has been hopeless !

                  (as i had no special comment regarding the rest of the previous
                  message, i took the liberty to delete it from my reply as it was very
                  long. You can read it on the previous one. Hope i did not hurt
                  anyone? Thak you!)
                • Rev. John R. Shaw
                  ... If I remember correctly, Metropolitan Sergius chose his words in a rather intersting way: he spoke of Comr. Stalin s concern for the spiritual needs of
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 31, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 30 May 2001, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote:
                    >
                    > We do not know what pressure Metr. Sergius was under in 1927. It was likely
                    > extremely heavy--as it was on Patr. Tikhon, as well. But Patr. Tikhon did
                    > not cave in on the most important questions--the actual administration of
                    > the Church was not handed over to the Soviet State, and Patr. Tikhon never
                    > praised the bolsheviks for their "great benevolence" to the Church, as did
                    > Metr. Sergius.
                    >
                    If I remember correctly, Metropolitan Sergius chose his words
                    in a rather intersting way: he spoke of Comr. Stalin's "concern for the
                    spiritual needs of the Russian people".

                    This has always seemed a rather memorable turn of speech to me...

                    In Christ
                    Fr. John R. Shaw
                  • valichka@wanadoo.fr
                    ... was likely extremely heavy--as it was on Patr. Tikhon, as well. But Patr. Tikhon did not cave in on the most important questions--the actual administration
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 31, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Rev. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:

                      > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote:
                      > >
                      > > We do not know what pressure Metr. Sergius was under in 1927. It
                      was likely extremely heavy--as it was on Patr. Tikhon, as well. But
                      Patr. Tikhon did not cave in on the most important questions--the
                      actual administration of the Church was not handed over to the Soviet
                      State, and Patr. Tikhon never praised the bolsheviks for their "great
                      benevolence" to the Church, as did Metr. Sergius.

                      > If I remember correctly, Metropolitan Sergius chose his words
                      > in a rather intersting way: he spoke of Comr. Stalin's "concern for
                      the spiritual needs of the Russian people".

                      What about Metropolitan Sergius concern for the earthly needs of the
                      Red Army? In oct. 1941, as the front line was approaching Moscow,
                      Stalin decided to send away Met Sergius from Moscow to Ulianovsk
                      where he spent 2 years. During the 1st year, Met. Sergius send
                      10 "Patriotics letters". He gathered 3 millions rubles for the army
                      needs. Then in dec. 1942, Met. Sergius opened a subscription for a
                      tank division named "Dimitri Donskoj". Stalin sent him a telegram (my
                      translation) "i ask you to tell the russian orthodox clergy and
                      worshippers my gratitude for their concerns about the tank force of
                      Red Army. I gave the order for the opening of a bank account at
                      Gosbank". Within 2 months the clergy and the people gathered 6
                      millions rubles for the tank division.
                      Experts from the book "Ruskaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov pred litsom
                      gospodstvuiuchago zla" Jordanville 1991.
                      For other extracts, see my message Nr.4784.

                      ps : (for Nikolaj I guess) and don't accuse me of
                      being "antipatriotic". Remember who was accused of "anti patriotic
                      and anti governmental acts" at a certain time?
                      >
                      > This has always seemed a rather memorable turn of speech to
                      me...
                      >
                      > In Christ
                      > Fr. John R. Shaw
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.