THE MAIN DANGER TO ORTHODOXY
- Dear list,
I found the following letter quite interesting . Allow me to share
it with you.
Yours in Christ,
A Letter from father Timothy Selsky to his Spiritual Son
From the collection, "Discussion on Love" (in russian) St.
Dear in the Lord N.N:
Who could possibly have the daring to claim that Orthodox Christians
are completely deprived of Grace when they leave official Orthodox
jurisdictions and join us? On the contrary if one is to judge by the
signs of Grace filled activity, those described by the ascetic
fathers, then in the passage to join the Church there is observed: a
more active spiritual growth, an increase in the voice of the
conscience, a strengthening of decisiveness in baring one's cross,
thos manifestations which are in general not experienced by those who
live comfortably in official Orthodoxy. It is precisely at the time
of these reunions with the Church that special help is granted in the
form of signs or unusual course of events. All of these witness to
the activity of Grace. In your letter you touched upon a very
important question. You have gathered the impression that the Russian
periodicals of the Russian Church Abroad [In Russia] are preocupied
with polemics concerning the "Moscow Patriarchate", as if it is
the "Patriarchate" that is the main enemy of Russian Orthodoxy and
not the various western false teachings and denominations.
...The root of the question is this: Who is the main enemy of
Orthodoxy at the present time? The trivial answer 'the devil' will
not satisfy us since immediatedly the question arises, Whom is the
devil using? Of course the devil in his madness desired the death of
Christ not realizing that His death would destroy the devil's power
over mankind. Who on the other hand directly carried out the hellish
plot of deicide? Who was Chrit's main persecutor during His earthly
life? The Roman officials? Greek philosophers? Barbarian Scythians?
Atheists who had no true understanding of worshipping God? No, Christ
did not disturb them in the least.
Who among those possessing an understand about the true God was
Christ's main enemy? Perhaps the Samaritans, those Old Testament
heretics who recognized nothing except the five books of Moses?
Obviously not. Pehaps it was the Sadducees, thos Old Testament
rationalists and "God seekers" near the Church [though not in it]? Of
course they did not accept Christ and even tried to tempt Him with
the foolish fantasy of the woman with the seven husbands. But the
Gospel tells us of no wicked hatred of theirs towards Christ.
Who was more wicked that any one? Who pursued, spying on the
Saviour's every move, frequently laying traps for Him, working out
plans for Christ-killing at various gatherings? Who languished with
envy and fear of losing influence over the broad masses of people?
Who finally judged Christ, and justified the greatest of all
humanity's crimes by using both religious and civil arguments?
Were these God-killers heretics or schismatics? Had they previously
betrayed openly and vocally the Law of God which was passed on to
them? Did they depart from the divinely established altar and its
services? Could one say: here are the followers of the true Faith,
here is their Church, and over there are the various heretics who war
against this Church. Could one repeat the following: here is the seat
of Moses, where sits the rightful highpriest, who has preserved
succession from Aaron, and over there is the false seat, raised up by
human fantasy? No, for those leaders from the seat of Moses, the
preservers of the law of Moses in all its purity, the bearers of the
priesthood of Aaron and the servers of the altar in Solomon's Temple
it was in fact they who did not just reject the Son of god but also
became His murderers.
Herein lies the whole essence of your question. I am amazed why so
many do not see this direct comparison between the past apostasy of
Judaism at the time of the first coming of Christ and the present
religious situation within official apostatized Orthodoxy captures by
Pharisees. Our present times have no precedence in the history of the
Church, There are reminiscent of the time of the first coming of
Christ. Now the "seat of Moses" i.e., the Hierarchs of the official
Orthodox Church, is occupied by Pharisees, people who do not openly
reject the letter of Orthodox teaching but mix the Truth with their
new religious understanding with the goal of controlling God's
people. No single heresy in the past can compare to that of the
ecumenical-modernist feeling planted in the masses by contemporary
pharisees. None of the fallings-away during times of the kings of
Israel can be compared to our present and all embracing apostacy of
those pharisees who have connived to preserve the whole outward mask
of religious truth.
Here we can see the chief moral indication of the closeness of our
times to the end of world history. Old Testament Pharisaism could be
removed from the consciousness of God's people only by the direct
interference of God, i.e., the first appereance of Christ. Christ
Himself taught that one should do all that the Pharisees commanded,
but only not imitate their works (Mt. 11:3), for the Pharisees
preserved the truth in unrighteousness. But where is the limit
between the true teaching which they preserved and theri works which
anulled the teaching and which could not be followed? The question is
not a simple one.
Official Orthodoxy in its resourceful actions strives to give people
at least some teaching, although distorted, according to the letter -
fir them who in fact value the letter. For example, those who want to
fast and pray, are instructed about the usefulness of fasting and are
taught "the theory of prayer". As for those who consider all of this
unnecessary they are allowed to pay no attention to prayer and
fasting, basing their permissiveness on some theory. If you want to
be pious, be pious, if you don't want to be pious, do not be, and at
the same time stay within your rights as a member of the Church- only
honor and accept the indivisible spiritual rule of the Pharisees.
Perhaps this reasoning seems too general to you. Then allow me to
introduce some concrete leading questions in answer to your quandary.
Do you agree that the spiritual essence of our present civil
[Russian] government is deeply hostile to Orthodoxy, that the present
government, like the previous one, bears within the spiritual signs
of the Antichrist? Who among the religious leaders more often appears
hand in hand with our civil leaders? The Catholics, Protestants,
Muslims? Whose churches do the civil leaders most often visit in
order to receive blessings for their crimes -spiritual, political,
Who constantly approves of the massive demonic-psychic cultivation of
the population in the past years in the form of "sessions" (seances)
for drunkness and psychic "healing"? What Catholic priest or
Protestant pastor in Russia (not abroad) provided this phenomenon
with such an effective pseudo-Christian cover? Are there not in fact
more Orthodox "spiritual fathers" who instituted this demonic cure
beginning with "Patriarch" Alexis II and the late "Metropolitan" John
of Petersburg and ending with the whole school of practicing psychics
among the clergy, for example like "Archpriest" Vassily Lesnyak?
Which religious group in Russia has more agents in the gouvernment
among its clergy, and also so patently exposed? Where are more
Chekists: in turbans, birettas, or in klobuks and mitres? Finally the
last question: what denomination in Russia at the present time has
more immunity, privileges, stability and other materialistic benefits
granted to them by an antichristian government?
The explaination for this discomforting comparison for the "Moscow
Patriarchate" is simple. Russia is historically an Orthodox country
and now like the rest of the world is under the power of
antichristian forces. Russia has even been exploited by these forces
in the course of 70 years as a testing area in preparation for the
coming of the Antichrist. In historically Catholic countries the
arrival of the Antichrist is being assisted by official Latinism, in
Protestant countries by Protestantism, and now in our country by the
historical religion wish has been "worked over" for the past 70 years.
A state religion in an antireligious state is critically important
commodity for the stability of such a government and demands many
years of effort to create. The foundation of such a state religion
has now been established throughout the civilized world. All official
Christian denominations now have greatly departed from their original
foundations. That which has remained in them is an ecumenical
pharisaical spirit and constant hypocrisy: they say one thing to
their people and themselves do something completedly the opposite.
This attitude binds them together. They experience something in
common in ecumenical contacts, and in their common departure from
theri former traditions, those traditions which are very troublesome
for ecumenists, but which they have not entirely cast off, for the
sake of their flocks.
For example, in the autum of 1994 the first Catholic parish was
opened in Novgorod. the newspaper NOVGOROD NEWS (April 8, 1995),
publisehd an interview with the rector of the church, The Catholic
priest Myroslav Danielsky announced that he receives no salary, rides
in the bus, rents a one room apartment and serves in the building of
a movie theater. His flock amounts to a few dozen people.
In light of thos sorri state of Catholicism in Novgorod we learn from
the Parisian Newspaper RUSSIAN TOUGHT, that the Pope assigns
$6,000,000 yearly through a special fund VERENPHREDA-VAN-STRAATEN
towards the material support not of his own priests in Russia
huddling in one room appartments and living off of hand-outs, but
for "Patriarchal" priests to the ammount of $1,000 a year each. Does
the Pope really love Orthodoxy so much? Priest Danielsky unknowingly
solves the riddle himself when he speaks of the good relations he has
with the local "Patriarchal Bishop" Lev: "The task of both of our
Churches is the same...."(!).
That priest was sent in order to witness to this sommon "task" before
the majority of the Norvogord's population, and not to care for the
needs of a few dozen Catholics. If he was an opponent of Ecumenism he
would never be there. The common master [of both groups] who has
assigned a "single task" to both "sister churches" understands
perfectly well who is richer and more popular in Warsaw, and who in
Novgorod, who there can "care for the people's souls" better in order
to bring them to the false christ, and who here. The stipend is
Take note how the intervention of foreign preachers in Russia has
dropped to a minimum, in the booklet "Laws of the Russian Federation
on Religions", the number of registered heterodox communities (which
includes true orthodox communities) is given at two or three hundred
maximum. The leaders of the "Moscow Patriarchate" have succeeded in
convincing the behind-the-stage-scene-bosses "we are not only the
most obedient to you of all the groups but also the most popular,
place your stakes on us".
What can one say about the simple believing people? They, like the
believers at the time of the first Pharisees, are divided. The
morally sensitive minority is maturing and looks for something
better. The remainder will develop under the pharisaical system.
THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN (Ec. 1:9)
I close with the words of St Maximus the Confessor which were
engraved for me as a gift and rest under the glass of my desk: "if
you wish to find the way leading unto life, seek it in that Way, Who
said, 'I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE'; I AM THE DOOR (Jn.
14:6, 10:9); and there you will find it. but seek diligently,
for 'FEW THAT BE THAT FIND IT' (Mt 7:14), lest you be left behind by
the few, and find thyself among the many (four centuries on Love,