Where is Father Sergius of the Crosses of the Russian Orthodox Church buried? The relationship between the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church: on the history of the issue (Safonov D.V.)

Recently (beginning of 2000), there has been a sharp increase in successful and unsuccessful attempts to seize churches and other property of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (“ROCOR”) by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate (“MP”) and the government Russian Federation(“RF”) around the world. In the publications of the MP and other media there are more and more attacks on the ROCOR, see, for example, the comments of His Grace Agafangel, Bishop of Simferopol and Crimea (ROCOR) regarding the libel that appeared in the publication "Radonezh" regarding the MP's attempt to seize the ROCOR monastery in Jericho in January 2000 By e-mail Our node began to receive more letters asking about the relationship between the ROCOR and the MP. Being only an ordinary member of one of the ROCOR parishes, I am not authorized to express the official point of view of the ROCOR. But at the same time, I don’t want to leave questions like these unanswered.

Fortunately, I recently came across a letter from ROCOR Archpriest Peter Perekrestov, one of the priests at the Cathedral of the Most Holy Theotokos “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in San Francisco, California, USA, written by him on this topic. Since this letter provides comprehensive answers to some of the questions asked to me, it is reproduced in full below.

_____________________________________________

BEING ON THE SIDE OF THE PERSECUTED AND SUFFERING

What separates the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate?

This letter was sent to the editor of the newspaper "Rus Pravoslavnaya" published in St. Petersburg and published with minor abbreviations/changes in No. 5 of the newspaper for 1998.

A small life with righteousness is better than a long life with untruth. (Proverbs 16:8)

Dear Editor,

We are aware that very often it is ordinary Russian people who have to suffer a lot because of church division, but the issue is so complex, so fundamental that it cannot be resolved by goodwill alone.

I will try not to denounce anyone or make any reproaches against individuals, since all individuals, sooner or later, will leave this world, but the principles will remain.

A SPLITTLE IN THE HEART OF RUSSIA

About Sergianism

Currently, many are paying a lot of attention to ecumenical activities within the Moscow Patriarchate. This is a very important question, but I think it is more surmountable than the reasons that caused the division. And in order to recall the reasons for division, it is necessary to turn to its origins. Until 1927, the Russian Church was united. Yes, there were renovationists, but they were not perceived by the Orthodox at all as part of the Russian Church. It is important to note that the division in the Russian Church was not a consequence of the Soviets coming to power. Under the Soviets, until 1927, the Russian Church, both in Russia and abroad, continued to remain united. 1927 was a turning point - then a schism formed, caused, first of all, by the famous “Declaration” of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). This was not, as is commonly said (see, for example, the statement of S. Grigoriev in No. 3 of Orthodox Rus', where he writes: “The schism in the Russian Church, which initially divided it into Russian and foreign, has now spread to Russia”), a schism between those living in Russia and those living beyond its borders. This was a split in the heart of Russia itself. Even a short list of hierarchs, clergy and laity who stood in “opposition” to Metropolitan Sergius (they either completely broke off communication with him, or left the state, or refused to carry out his orders) convincingly shows that they were the flower and decoration of the Russian Church: metropolitans Agafangel of Yaroslavl, Kirill of Kazan, Joseph of Petrograd, Archbishops Arseny (Zhadanovsky), Seraphim (Zvezdinsky), Seraphim of Uglich, Theodore (Pozdeevsky), Bishops Barnabas (Belyaev), Gregory (Lebedev), Elder Nektary of Optina, priests Sergius Mechev, Anatoly Zhurakovsky, laymen S. Nilus, M. Novoselov... The late Metropolitan John, in his work on schisms in the Russian Church, mentions that “many of those pastors who, during the years of struggle against renovationism, showed themselves to be staunch fighters for the purity of Orthodoxy, have now come forward (after leaving Declarations - Archpriest P.) against Metropolitan Sergius" (Church schisms in the Russian Church, Sortavala, 1993, p. 159). “When the faithful children of the Russian Church read the message of the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens and the Temporary Patriarchal Synod under him, many of them were so amazed by its content that they decided for the best not to retain the message and sent it back to the author. Almost 90% Orthodox parishes came with a declaration following the above example" (ibid., p. 130). A delegation came to Metropolitan Sergius, which begged him to renounce the Declaration, but he did not heed the requests of his clergy and flock, who were ready to support him in his renunciation of the Declaration to death To the delegation’s question to Metropolitan Sergius, “Are you saving the Church?”, the latter replied: “Yes, I am saving the Church!” (ibid., p. 164). So, Metropolitan Sergius created a schism in Russia itself. Since 1927, not since 1990 years, there are so-called “parallel structures" in Russia. And the Russian hierarchs, who were outside their homeland in 1927, remained unanimous with those in Russia who did not accept the Declaration.

It should also be taken into account that in the years after the “Provisional Government” and the Bolsheviks came to power, all the traditional foundations of Russian life began to collapse at incredible speed. Conscientious people began to choke from the bacchanalia that was taking place, from the devastation, from the loss of guidelines... All their eyes were directed to the Church, which, following the confessional path, opposed all this. At a time when all life was saturated with lies, the Holy Church courageously and openly spoke the truth. Until 1927. With the Declaration a new stage of church life began. Popularly, officially, the Declaration and the lies it contained became not only acceptable, but, as it were, mandatory.

Much has been said and written about the Declaration. I would like to draw attention to some less noticeable points. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the last Patriarch recognized by all Russian Orthodox people, anathematized the Bolsheviks. In addition, he conjured everyone who entered into communication with them: “We conjure all of you, the faithful children of the Orthodox Church of Christ, not to enter into contact with such monsters of the human race (i.e., those who commit lawlessness and persecute the faith and the Orthodox Church - Archpriest P. ) into any communication" (Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, Moscow, 1994, p. 83). And so, in 1927, Metropolitan Sergius issues a Declaration in which he, contrary to the covenant of St. Patriarch Tikhon actually enters into communication with this government. Moreover, he did not simply, as the apologists of Metropolitan Sergius say, “took this sin upon himself” - the Declaration was signed by members of his “Patriarchal” Synod (consisting almost entirely of former renovationists) and was sent to the entire clergy for mandatory acceptance. Whoever does not accept the Declaration is not only an enemy of the Soviets, but also stands in opposition to the Church! One involuntarily recalls the words of the Gospel: “Whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father in heaven, and whoever denies Me before men, him I also will deny before My Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:32-33). We do not judge Metropolitan Sergius personally and we do not dictate to him what he should do. But before us, in the Gospel and in numerous examples from the lives of saints, there is an answer to the question: what is the Christian norm of behavior in conditions of persecution? If you can save the Church with lies and diplomacy, then why can’t you save your personal, family or public interests with lies? Where is the line between permissible, “holy” lies and impermissible? And if the Church has legalized lies for the benefit of the Church, then why can’t we legalize lies to save oneself, lies to advance in a career, lies to get a job, to an institute... The famous Moscow archpriest Fr. Vladislav Sveshnikov writes the following on this matter: “It was mainly the most immature, spiritually unstable, Christianly inconsistent, and sometimes morally half-dead members of the Church who could agree with the spirit of the declaration... Perhaps the most severe consequence of the new church policy was the extreme distortion of church consciousness... . Lies, extensive crafty lies entered the life of the Church after its legalization" (Psychology of Neo-Sergianism, Trinity Orthodox Newspaper, 1993).

The second point regarding the Declaration is the following. If His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon cursed all those who entered into communication with the godless authorities, and Metropolitan Sergius did exactly this in his Declaration, does not this curse extend to the Moscow Patriarchate to this day? Did and does the anathematization of Patriarch Tikhon have real meaning and power? And his spell? Who lifted this anathematization and spell? These are serious spiritual issues and ignore them Russian Orthodox Christian no way. The spiritual leaders of the Russian Diaspora, such as Saints John of Shanghai and Saint Francis the Wonderworker and Averky of Syracuse and Trinity, constantly called us to repentance and emphasized that as long as the sin of regicide is on the Russian people, there will be no revival of Russia. Is it possible to conclude that until the curse of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon on the Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Church will not be united?

The third point relating to the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius has a direct connection with the issue of glorifying the Holy Passion-Bearer Tsar-Martyr Nicholas and His Family. This point was brought to our attention by a church historian and theologian living in Russia, Archpriest Lev Lebedev. The Declaration calls not just for recognition of Soviet power, as God’s permission, but specifically for spiritual fraternization with this power. What follows is a list of those disasters of the regime that the Church, according to Metropolitan Sergius, considers as their disasters, or “blows at us,” i.e. in church. Among such “blows” is designated “a murder from around the corner, similar to Warsaw.” The “Warsaw Murder” refers to the murder of Bolshevik diplomat Voikov (Pinkhus Lazarevich Weiner) in 1927 by Russian patriot Boris Koverda. Now not everyone knows who Weiner (aka Voikov) was, but then, in 1927, everyone, including Metropolitan Sergius, knew perfectly well that he was one of the most important organizers of the murder of the Royal Family! So, a blow to Voikov, i.e. to the regicide - a blow to the Church! How scary it is!

Therefore, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia considers the rejection of “Sergianism” a necessary condition for church revival in Russia. Unfortunately, “Sergianism” not only has not yet been condemned, but is also put forward as a role model for Russians Orthodox people. This is clearly evidenced by the words of Patriarch Alexy II in connection with the 80th anniversary of the restoration of the patriarchate. We hear the following stunning words: “With a host of martyrs, the Russian Church testified to its faith and prepared its future revival. Among the confessors of Christ, we can fully name St. Tikhon and St. Sergius” ( emphasized by me - Archpriest P.).

It is not for nothing that Hieromonk Seraphim Rose noted that an important key to understanding the position of the Church as a whole lies in “Sergianism”: “Sergianism will become an increasingly acute subject of controversy... The essence of Sergianism is connected with the problem inherent in all Orthodox Churches in our days - - loss spirit of Orthodoxy, neglect of the Church; the perception of the “organization” as the Body of Christ; the belief that grace and the Sacraments operate “automatically.” Logic and decency will not help us overcome these stumbling blocks - it will take a lot of suffering and spiritual experience, and few will understand the essence of the whole matter" (Russian Shepherd, No. 13, 1992, p. 61).

Thanks to the Sergian policy, worldly (godless) leaders began to control church life to such an extent that church cadres were nominated and approved by them. And the rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council reads: “Any election of a Bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, made by worldly leaders, shall not be valid according to the rule that says: if a Bishop, having used the worldly leaders, through them will receive Episcopal power in the Church, yes He will be cast out and excommunicated, and everything associated with him." Again, does this canon have real meaning, real power, or is it just a “historical monument”? When discussing the canonical reasons dividing the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate, this issue cannot be avoided.

EVERYTHING IN ACTION

About ecumenism

There is no doubt that believers in Russia, at least internally and intuitively, reject ecumenism. This in itself is a gratifying and encouraging phenomenon. A large, but not the only, role in this was played by books and articles by authors of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. But not only books. The presence of parishes and communities of the Church Abroad in Russia undoubtedly helped the process of realizing the danger of betrayal of Orthodoxy in the bosom of the Moscow Patriarchate. Thanks to these parishes, in order not to lose parishioners and power, the Moscow Patriarchate was forced to openly talk about many taboo topics, including ecumenism.

Unfortunately, among the episcopate and a large part of the “leading” layer of the clergy in key positions in the MP administration, ecumenism as a belief is alive. It is impossible to pass over in silence the words of Archbishop Vladimir of Tashkent and Central Asia that “why the hysterical fear of ecumenism? Hitherto the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church has not compromised and until the times of Antichrist it will not compromise a single dogma or canon of the pure faith of Christ... The myth of " ecumenical pan-heresy" was invented by spiteful critics from the Russian Orthodox Church" (Orthodox Rus' No. 1, 1998). Indeed, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, represented by its hierarchs and theologians (including Hieromonk Seraphim Rose), assessed the ecumenical movement and collectively defined ecumenism as a heresy. The late Metropolitan John of St. Petersburg in his last article referred specifically to the authority of the Russian Church Abroad regarding ecumenism. But the definition of ecumenism as “pan-heresy” was given and supported by others, first of all, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, the conscience of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) in his book “The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism”, Patriarch of Alexandria Nicholas VI, who called ecumenism not simply heresy, and “pan-heresy - the repository of all heresies and evil beliefs” and the Athonite monks, not to mention quite numerous Orthodox authors in Russia. The falsity of the words of the Archbishop of Central Asia that “Hitherto the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church has not compromised and until Antichrist times will not compromise a single dogma or canon of the pure faith of Christ” does not require special proof. Let us at least recall the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate on the permissibility of communion for Roman Catholics (this decision was officially canceled, in my opinion, in 1986). Before us lies a photograph of Billy Graham preaching (in his “robes”) in the presence of Patriarch Pimen and members of the Synod from the pulpit (with the royal doors open) of the Epiphany Cathedral in Moscow in 1988. The decision of the “Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church” at the 1994 Council on the admissibility of joint prayers with non-Orthodox believers indicates a violation of the 45th rule of the holy apostles, which has doctrinal significance. And the words of the Bishop of Vladivostok that “the atheistic authorities forced the Russian Church to participate in such events (i.e., the ecumenical movement - Archpriest P.)” (Orthodox Rus' No. 2, 1998) do not correspond to the statement of the Bishops’ Council of the Moscow Patriarchate of 1994 , at which for the first time, publicly and ecclesiastically, it was stated that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) in the WCC was dictated and is being dictated “primarily by considerations of church benefit” (Bishop Council of the Russian Orthodox Church - Documents, Publishing House "Chronicle", 1994 ).

Orthodox participants in ecumenical gatherings repeatedly emphasize that they do this for the sake of “witnessing Orthodoxy” before the heterodox world. The power of this testimony is so insignificant that we do not yet know of a single case of a non-religious participant in an ecumenical meeting/prayer refusing his errors and converting to Orthodoxy. On the contrary, there are spiritual consequences from participating in prayers with heretics and pagans: Orthodox representatives lose the ability to openly profess Orthodoxy.

At the beginning of this year, at the invitation of Patriarch Alexy II (ENI Bulletin, No. 3, February 1998), the Chairman of the WCC, Dr. Konrad Reiser, visited Russia, see article "". Dr. Reiser, together with Metropolitan Philaret of Minsk and Professor of the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris Nikolai Lossky, spoke to students of Moscow theological schools, trying to convince them of the great benefits that the activities of the WCC bring. Then, some monks and students began to speak out with indignation, denouncing the ecumenists and the WCC, whose ranks were now being infiltrated by both homosexuals and female “priests.” Among what was said, I quote from memory, was the statement of the Lavra hieromonk that, supposedly, the bishops and priests of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate), taking part in the WCC, do not represent the Church, but only themselves. But at the next liturgy, this same Lavra hieromonk and his like-minded people will serve on the antimension issued by their clergy and repeatedly repeat the name of the patriarch as “Our Lord and Father” - i.e. to testify to their complete unanimity in matters of faith with those who “do everything on their own, and not on behalf of the Church.” How to be in such a situation? Where is the way out for these monks? What did the Orthodox do under these conditions when their hierarchs found themselves on the path to apostasy, if not to say heresy?

PERSECUTED TRUTH

About Russian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

For some, at the moment, there is only one answer to this question, a way out of the impasse: transition under the omophorion of those hierarchs who openly, clearly and Orthodoxy profess our faith. This process began openly in 1990. Yes, there were mistakes; yes, there were provocateurs; Yes, there were those who switched not out of ideological convictions, but were looking for their own... But there were also those whose conscience did not allow them to do otherwise; there were those who could not afford to verbally “convict” their hierarchs of apostasy, and then kiss their hands and raise their names as “their Masters.” And now, eight years later, it has become quite clear who transferred for what reasons. There are those who, like the former Bishop Valentin of Suzdal, “weeded out” - and not so much by the decision of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but as if by the action of God. At the same time, those who switched for ideological reasons have been enduring open persecution, deprivation, bitterness, and slander for eight years now. It should be emphasized once again that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has not opened a single parish in Russia. Name it and show it. Who was appointed rector to Russia from abroad? Does any of the clergy of the Russian Church receive salaries from the West? By the way, I read the other day in the newspaper “Orthodox St. Petersburg” (No. 1, 1998) that from state treasury The Russian Federation has allocated 1,375,000 US dollars in ruble equivalent to the Moscow Patriarchate for the maintenance of “representative offices” of the Church abroad! As a rule, the clergy of Russian parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad live in very difficult material conditions. Those parishes that, by the grace of God, have real churches, are constantly under threat of seizure of church property.

Eight years is not a long period. This isn't even the beginning. Let us at least remember iconoclasm. After all, for another 150 years after the victory of the icon venerators at the VIIth Ecumenical Council, the struggle for Orthodoxy was waged. I think that the process of confronting apostasy within the Moscow Patriarchate (I emphasize that the enemy is not the Moscow Patriarchate, but precisely the apostasy within its bosom) is just beginning. With the flow of information, active hierarch-ecumenists can no longer hide their actions so carefully. Nowadays many books are being published, thanks to which church consciousness is just beginning to awaken among the clergy and laity. And, sooner or later, every thinking, every conscientious, and every true Orthodox priest will be faced with the question: how and with whom should I be? Now in Russia there is a “second wave” of clergy moving into the fold of the Russian Church (as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on Russian territory is usually called). These are, as a rule, priests who do not create any illusions for themselves - there are no benefits in this decision, as soon as before God. With the implementation of the new law on freedom of conscience, these priests may find themselves in a completely illegal position. And yet, they make this decision. How can one not bow to them, not respect them? If the Moscow Patriarchate glorified Elder Nektarios of Optina, and the glorified saints serve as role models for us, then why can’t we follow in the footsteps of St. Nektarios, who did not recognize the authority of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers? We, as Orthodox Christians, must listen to the voice of our conscience. I remember the words of the Tver priest Fr. Alexander Levkovsky, shot for loyalty to the Church and refusal to accept the lies of Metropolitan Sergius: “I understand that my church identity is unacceptable for the soviet government, but this does not bother me. I am ready to suffer punishment from the soviet government, just to remain honest before the Church, to be faithful to it until the end."

Let me digress a little from the main topic here and briefly analyze what happened in 1990. Until this year, people worshiped the Russian Church Abroad. She glorified the New Russian Martyrs. She published strictly Orthodox spiritual literature and, whenever possible, sent it free of charge to everyone in Russia who asked. She gave great confessors of Orthodoxy - Saints John of Shanghai and San Francisco, Averky of Syracuse and Trinity, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). She loudly anathematized the heresy of ecumenism. She fearlessly defined the relationship of Orthodoxy to Freemasonry, to Sophianism, to innovation. She preserved the legacy of the New Martyrs (two-volume work by Protopresbyter Michael of Poland). Hieromonk Seraphim Rose is her faithful son. The Church Abroad saved the Kursk Root Icon of the Mother of God from desecration, and it was from her that the Iveron-Myrrh-streaming image of the Most Pure Mother of God began to stream myrrh. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has never renounced the name Russian, and, at the same time, those who desire pure, undamaged Orthodoxy from all nationalities have been and are drawn to it.

And then, in 1990, she suddenly became “bad”, she changed dramatically. How? Why? Because until then she was far away, she was abroad, she was inaccessible, but now, she is here in Russia, and for the first time in 60 years, every Orthodox Christian faces not an abstract, but a real choice. By the way, the decision to accept parishes by the Church Abroad was not planned, it was discussed for a long time - a number of petitions were received from Russia by the Synod of Bishops and it decided to extend its hand to those asking. This is in the tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - to be on the side of the persecuted and suffering.

But this is happening on the “legal territory” of the Moscow Patriarchate. Readers, I think, know that the Moscow Patriarchate has many parishes abroad. But that's not the point. The fact is that the decision whether to be in the bosom of this Church Abroad or not is now really facing everyone, and this is scary. But there is also a purely psychological, human moment that we should take into account.

In 1990, two things happened that really affected the “failure” (I say this in quotes, since the real process is just beginning) of the Church Abroad in Russia. The first thing: the election of Patriarch Alexy II (Ridiger). Patriarch Alexy arrived in Moscow and gathered the Moscow clergy who had been oppressed in previous years, and who felt a special closeness to the Church Abroad. He, being an experienced diplomat, expressed sympathy and admiration for their feat, understanding and support. At the same time, the Church Abroad began to accept parishes and clergy (not always the most “exemplary”), and also “demand” repentance from clergy transferring from the MP. And, humanly speaking, it is natural that the clergy, who previously had a positive attitude towards the Church Abroad, having heard such a strict demand (interestingly, it was completely proposed and drawn up precisely by the Russian clergy) should repent (and this previously sympathetic clergy really resisted with all their might everything Soviet and deceitful) on the one hand, and being “kindly favored by His Holiness” - on the other hand, he rebelled against the movement of those converting to the Church Abroad. These Moscow clerics did Patriarch Alexy a huge service - he was able to consolidate his position on their authority. Many of them now occupy quite high and responsible positions in a number of parishes and spiritual educational institutions Moscow.

And the parishes and communities of the Russian Church, in many places, are under pressure. In Moscow, thanks, in particular, to the alliance of the MP with the “powers of this world,” it is unlikely that even one openly operating parish of the Church Abroad will be allowed. Mayor Yuri Luzhkov announced this at a press conference in Montreal in March 1993. Yu. Luzhkov met with the Russian public at the Montreal City Hall. At that time, the Old Believers of Moscow gave their consent to the transfer of the church they did not need to the Church Abroad, and Mayor Luzhkov vetoed this transfer. To the correspondent’s question: “When will you give us (that is, the Church Abroad - Archpriest P.) the temple that the Old Believers gave us?” the mayor replied: “As long as I am the mayor of Moscow, I will not allow a split.” In almost all church stores in Moscow you can find books by the bishop. Varnava Belyaev, Archbishop Averky, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, Fr. Sergius Mechev... - but in these books the affiliation of the authors to the Foreign and Catacomb Churches is completely silent. But there are no books printed with the blessing of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Russian parishes are persecuted. Although they are few in number, the upper echelon of the Moscow Patriarchate is very afraid of them. Vladyka Primorsky Benjamin does not hide this. On the one hand, he praises the Church Abroad, and on the other, he complains that in his diocese the number of communities of the Russian Church is growing so much that there is a real need for a bishop. There was a temple of the Russian Church in Vladivostok. For several years, believers and the clergy carried out tons of garbage with their hands, found human bones, donated pennies and restored the St. Eusebius Church. As the rector of the temple told us, in December 1996, while he was absent, the temple was seized by a group of MP monks led by Bishop Benjamin of Primorsky, armed Cossacks and a police squad, in the presence of the prosecutor and the representative for religious affairs of the governor of the Primorsky Territory. Now parishioners pray at home or in premises adapted for church. Throughout Russia, similar cases of seizing a temple can be listed, often with beatings. And the more the clergy and believers of the Russian Church are persecuted, the more they are confirmed in their path. How much force and evil is directed against Russian parishes. It is curious that in their hostility to the Church Abroad, although for different reasons, representatives of both the “traditional” and renovationist trends of the Moscow Patriarchate unite. This sin, the persecution of one’s own Orthodox Christians, lies entirely on the conscience of the hierarchy and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, who participate in this, whether actively or through their passive silence. When we're talking about regarding the reconciliation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate, this sin cannot be hushed up. Both in your newspaper and in some organs abroad there were words that a special “problem” in the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate is the so-called. "parallel parishes" Do you want us to give them up? will it be moral? Will it be churchly and in the spirit of Orthodoxy? No! You cannot build church life on betrayal, even for the sake of the “higher good”! Few readers may be aware of another phenomenon. If someone was ordained to the priesthood by the archpastor of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad on the territory of Russia (and there are currently 4 of them, including Ukraine) and he wishes to come under the omophorion of Patriarch Alexy II, then this priest will be re-ordained! There have already been at least three cases of re-ordination known to us: the first - Fr. Oleg Stenyaev. He was ordained to the priesthood by former Bishop Valentin of Suzdal, and upon returning to the MP he was ordained again. This reordination can somehow be understood from the point of view of the MP, since Bishop. Valentin was banned from the priesthood by her.

The other two cases are the re-ordination of Fr. Vladimir Rodionov and Fr. Dimitry Goltsev. Father Vladimir was initially ordained by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko), who received consecration from foreign hierarchs, and Fr. Demetrius - Bishop Benjamin, who was consecrated in Canada. Both, just like Fr. Oleg, upon transferring to the MP, they were ordained for the second time. At the same time, we read in the report of the Theological Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate to the Synod of Bishops that they say that we (the Orthodox) have always recognized the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church and evidence of this is that we accept the Roman Catholic clergy in their existing rank! This simply does not fit into the mind: they reordain their own Orthodox Christians, and accept Roman Catholic clergy into their existing rank! By the way, thank God, not a single case of the reordination of a priest transferring from the MP to the Church Abroad is known. And the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia not only ordains but also baptizes clergy (Protestants and Catholics) who convert to Orthodoxy from heresy.

THE PRICE OF UNITY

On the issue of unity

So, we tried to outline the reasons that separate us from the Moscow Patriarchate. The pastors and children of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad mourn this division. At every liturgy we pray for “the well-being of God’s churches and the unity of all,” and also in the Prayer for the Salvation of Russia, so that no one perishes, but everyone is saved and comes to the mind of truth. But how can we overcome our division, and what is ultimately our goal? I think that our goal can be expressed in the following words - the victory of Truth in Rus'. Not unity for the sake of unity, but only if this unity leads to the victory of Truth. Let us remember the words of St. Gregory the Theologian about what happens: “good separation and harmful unity.” So we should be afraid of this “detrimental unity”. This is what the most sober forces of the Russian diaspora are afraid of. Undoubtedly, there are extreme elements in the Russian Church Abroad. Some are very opposed to the Moscow Patriarchate and refuse to see any positive changes or healthy processes. And at the same time, the other extreme is the desire to reunite at any cost, under any conditions. With all this, we must take into account that if the Moscow Patriarchate “absorbs” the Russian Church Abroad (let us recall at least the words of Patriarch Alexy II upon his arrival in Jerusalem in 1997: “Today there is no justification for the continued existence of the Russian Church Abroad. All representations of the Russian Orthodox Church, those carrying out their activities abroad must return under the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate" Orthodox St. Petersburg, No. 7, 1997), then perhaps there will not be a voice left in the whole world that can freely, consistently and to the end, according to its strengths and capabilities, confront modern apostasy. This voice will fall silent, and, at best, will become similar to the sound of some current zealots of Orthodoxy in Russia, who can speak, but cannot finish everything and who are “paralyzed” in the ability to act decisively and openly. Is it desirable, in the current apostasy time, for the voice of the Russian Church Abroad, a Church that has a special spiritual quality, a special ecclesiastical persona, to be silent? There is no need to flatter yourself with the hope that foreign hierarchs will join the MP and a “revolution” will take place. How many voices of the laity and clergy are heard in Russia now and, realistically speaking, the “leading layer” pays almost no attention to them, and, if it does, it is only for the sake of maintaining its power. By entering into communion with the MP, the Church Abroad would find itself in communion with representatives of “official Orthodoxy” - with those who quite consciously and deliberately unite with both Monophysites and heterodox. Is this desirable? One can answer that in the event of a “merger” with the Church Abroad, the MP would break off communication with “ official Orthodoxy"Again, I don’t think that she would have done this, and if so, it would not be very soon. Thus, joining the MP would entail communication with those who, at least partially, are subject to anathematization for participation in the ecumenical heresy .

On the pages of your newspaper there were calls for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. It is known that nine “interviews” took place in the German diocese and a joint statement was issued by Archbishop Mark and Bishop Theophan. It seems to me that dialogue is not the way through which unity occurs. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose said that unity occurs “organically”, and not through statements and mutual “agreements” behind round table. Indeed, where in the history of the Church and the lives of the saints can we read that Orthodox zealots sat down at the same table with apostates or apostates and came to an agreement on unity, which was then made public to their subordinates? Realistically speaking, I simply cannot imagine, say, how our archpastors can sit at the same table with members of the “Holy Synod” of the Moscow Patriarchate, with those who are currently being renounced by the zealots of Orthodoxy within the bosom of the Patriarchate itself. The statements and actions of the Synod members are so contradictory, ambiguous and at times simply disingenuous that there is not the slightest reason to hope for any sincerity. In addition, each permanent member of the Synod compromised himself in matters of faith - be it a speech before rabbis, passage through pagan fire, modernist theology, spiritual and prayerful fraternization with heretics... Can we really talk about a real desire on their part to overcome fundamental differences? Is there even one known case when, not in words, but in deeds, the Moscow Patriarchate showed, at least towards Russian parishes, a friendly or simply Christian attitude? They could at least once not prevent the community of the Russian Church in Moscow from obtaining premises for a church. This would show them that they deserve at least the slightest trust. Archbishop Mark made an attempt (with which many disagreed and which confused many) to show kindness to Patriarch Alexei and paid him a visit in 1996. Literally a few weeks later, the Moscow Patriarchate turned to the Danish government with a demand to give them the Alexander Nevsky Church in Copenhagen. Then an attempt began to seize pre-revolutionary Russian churches in Germany, and this in the diocese of Archbishop Mark! And in July 1997, with the help of the Palestinian police, the Holy Trinity Monastery in Hebron was forcibly taken away... On the pages of "Orthodox Rus'" the opinion was expressed that the most realistic scenario in the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate seems to be the possibility of the Church Abroad joining the Moscow Patriarchate on certain conditions. It was also said that: “the coming schism in the ROCOR is almost inevitable. Its result, most likely, will be the entry of a larger, “moderate” part of foreigners into the canonical structures of the Moscow Patriarchate and the transformation of the remaining “irreconcilables” into a dwarf, dying organization of a sectarian type.”

If I were asked which element in the Church Abroad most strives for unity, by all means, with the MP, I would answer that, according to my observations, these are precisely those who belong to the relatively “liberal” wing of the Church Abroad . “Liberal” in relation to non-Orthodox people and in theology. These, as a rule, are not those believers who live by the covenants of St. John, Archbishop Averky, Metropolitan Philaret, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose... I think that such “entry of foreigners into the MP” will not provide the desired support to zealots in the bosom of the Moscow Patriarchate. The ever-memorable First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), left us a covenant: “keep what you have” - this is the path we must adhere to. Do not add anything from yourself, do not rely on your mind, on your human strength, on earthly logic, on political (in church life) calculations. There is no need to denounce loudly (although, as Orthodox Christians, we are obliged to observe what is happening in the church fence), but with God's help to strive and adhere, as far as possible, to all the teachings of Christ and the tradition of our Holy Orthodox Faith. Such a confession is louder than any words, any statements. Treat those who come and ask with love, with compassion, but at the same time, deeply principled.

If the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate has the same attitude - jealousy and love for Orthodoxy and a friendly attitude towards those who are trying to be faithful to Orthodoxy, then there is no doubt that sooner or later we will be together. Already now, at the level of ordinary believers, at the level of ordinary clergy, a rapprochement is often felt - a rapprochement in pain about the ongoing betrayal of church interests and positions about which we, in particular, read in the newspaper "Orthodox Rus'", a rapprochement in pain for Russia, a rapprochement in reverence for the significance of the martyrdom of St. Tsar-Martyr Nicholas, rapprochement in a conscious approach to shepherding, rapprochement in confrontation with renovationism, ecumenism and Sergianism... You pose the question as if to a greater extent the question of a united Russian Church depends on us. But I think that it will be decided in the Russian open spaces. Sooner or later, each priest will be faced with a specific choice. I think that the conscience of the “conservative” part of the clergy (we are, of course, not talking about those who have already made their choice and are in the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) will no longer withstand the apostasy of the hierarchy and that invisible line that now separates the two currents in the Moscow Patriarchy will become visible and irresistible. Then organically, by God’s grace, and not politically, not tactically, we will have not only one faith, one heart, but also complete communion at the Chalice of Christ. And then there will be that only unity of faith, which is genuine, churchly, in Christ. Help us, God help you! Christ is Risen!