To His Eminence Vladyka Metropolitan Vitaly, First-Hierarch of ROCOR

O Your Eminence, Holy and Dear Vladyko!

This is what I attempted to tell you verbally, when I saw you in the Synod. But, as the hour was late (the 22-nd, after the All-night Vigil), You, Vladyko, blessed me to set down for you, upon paper, everything that I had said — which, with God's help and with your Episcopal prayers, I have attempted to do.

I could have written much, much more. But I fear tiring you. Please don't judge me harshly, but my head was slammed against rocks in Hebron.

As my soul aches for our Church, I dare to lift up my voice in defense of Her.

Grant, O Lord, that it might not be "the voice of one, crying in the wilderness", that it will find a response in other hearts (souls).

Forgive me,
the sinful novice of Your Eminence, Abbess Juliana and the Sisters

Some brief critical observations regarding the Epistle of the ROCOR Bishops' Sobor of 13/26 October 2000

We know full-well the 4 factors that divide the CA [Church Abroad] and the MP:

I. The MP is not a Church, but an uncanonical assemblage.
II. The Declaration of 1927.
III. The MP's failure to glorify the New Martyrs.
IV. Ecumenism.

[I]"It is therefore with well-intentioned sympathy that we salute the turning of the entire Russian nation to prayer to all the holy New Martyrs of Russia, and in particular to the Royal new martyrs, which has now become possible due to the recognition of their sanctity by the Sobor of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. What gives us hope is the adoption of a new social concept by this sobor, which, in essence, blots out Metropolitan Sergii's 1927 "Declaration," by recognizing the supremacy of God's commandments over those demands of worldly authorities which would lead to the violation of religious and moral principles."

The fact that the MP can only be called a church with the addendum "of the wicked" — that it is, in fact, a chapter of the KGB — is an insurmountable barrier (which came into existence by dint of history) to our union with the MP (let us recall the first part of Vladyka Antony's spiritual testament) prior to its genuine ecclesiastical repentance. Unfortunately, in Par. 2 the MP is called a "Church" — even a "yoke-bearing (enslaved)" one — with shades of sympathy for the MP's cooperation with the State. The MP is a "martyric church" (let us recall the new "theology" of the MP, which exalts sergianism to almost a sort of martyrdom; i.e., they betrayed Orthodoxy for the sake of saving the church as an organization). But not a word is said about the Catacomb Church — the True Church of Russia.

In Par. 1, the acts of the MP are viewed as being lawful acts. Thus, both the grace-endowed status and the canonicity of this church are recognized. This means that the 1-st chief obstacle that divides the MP from the CA is recognized as being non-existent.

Attention should also be directed at the manifest lie in Par. 1. What sort of sycophantic tone is this? It appears that prayer to the holy New Martyrs and the Royal Martyrs has now become possible as a result of their sanctity having been recognized by the MP. But we know well that icons painted in the [Russian] Church Abroad have long-since spread throughout all Russia, and that their own [Russian ones] have appeared; that people have long-since been praying to the New Martyrs and the Royal Martyrs, for it is 20 years now since they were glorified [by ROCOR] and the heart (soul) of the [Russian] people knows this full well.

[II] The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergii: "It is therefore with well-intentioned sympathy that we salute the turning of the entire Russian nation to prayer to all the holy New Martyrs of Russia, and in particular to the Royal new martyrs, which has now become possible due to the recognition of their sanctity by the Sobor of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. What gives us hope is the adoption of a new social concept by this sobor, which, in essence, blots out Metropolitan Sergii's 1927 "Declaration" by recognizing the supremacy of God's commandments over those demands of worldly authorities that would lead to the violation of religious and moral principles."

Let us attentively peruse the wording: "in essence, blots out." What is "essence," "existence," "being"? So, the Declaration no longer exists; it is as though it never was. To recognize the supremacy of God's commandments over the demands of worldly authorities — as the new social concept of the MP does — contradicts the Declaration, but nothing more. Our Hierarchs, on the other hand, have appraised it as a mortal shot fired at sergianism. And this, at a time when a total merger has taken place between the MP and the State (let us recall all the mafia affairs, when the mafia, de facto, buys the MP, and the MP itself becomes a part of the State mafia. Who paid for all those gigantic structures (the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour)? It would appear that we, who for 80 years have demanded [that the MP] repent of sergianism, suddenly discover its abrogation in some sort of "social concept," where not a word of historical truth has been uttered concerning it [i.e., sergianism]. That, which the MP Sobor did not even anticipate, we ourselves suddenly have declared. We have forgotten how much blood the Holy Martyrs shed in opposing Sergii's declaration, and have taken some sort of "concept" to be repentance, at a time when not a word has been uttered in the documents of the MP Sobor about repentance, in its ecclesiastical sense. From the Epistle, it follows that sergianism is no longer a factor in our separation. It has remained, perhaps, as a vestige of the past, but all these nuances of remnant phenomena can be worked out.

And, thus, the Epistle does away with this second obstacle.

[III] The New Martyrs

"Being guided by the spirit of the Gospel, we recognize, with due awareness, just how difficult it is for the Church in Russia to be freed from the consequences of having been enslaved by the soviet State regime and its atheistic ideology. This awareness moves us to treat with sympathy and good will the believers of the formerly enslaved Church, and to salute the substantial steps taken towards recovery in the life of the church in Russia."

Inasmuch as the MP is viewed as being a Church, it is natural that the glorification also acquires legitimacy.

Thus is the third obstacle destroyed.

[IV] Ecumenism

Each year we loudly proclaim the anathema against ecumenism. At the same time, we know that our hierarchs pray with ecumenists. It is sufficient for us to open up [the pages] of the last issue of the "Vestnik Germanskoi Eparkhii" ["The Herald Of the German Diocese"]. We shall not mention other examples; they are well known. If one recalls the numerical composition of the hierarchs of the MP and of our synod (they have approximately 240; we, if I am not mistaken, have 15) and the fact that they have some 20-30 rabid adherents of ecumenism (alas, I do not presently have the corresponding facts; hence, I write with such approximations), then one is forced to the conclusion that the relative percentage between ecumenists and the opponents of this pan-heresy is the same in our ranks.

"To this lamentable situation should also be added the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate, at its sobor, confirmed its de facto adherence to widespread participation in ecumenism and has not concerned itself with protecting its young generation from this pan-heresy."

And so, we are not comfortable with the MP's adherence to widespread participation in ecumenism; we would like it to be a bit narrower (as it is with us). The degree of participation [in ecumenism] by the MP and the CA is different, but there is no longer any difference, in principle. Thus, the 4-th factor that divides us is not disaffirmed, but, de facto, it does not exist, as some of our hierarchs already pray with ecumenists.

So, with the existence of good will, "brotherly love" and a coordinating committee, it is possible to surmount this barrier, as well.

The conclusion is: reviewing all 4 obstacles yet again, we see that they no longer exist — they were broken down not by an onslaught of the MP, but by one of our own.

And so, we find ourselves in a state of potential union.

This is very important. The entire secret of this document lies in its not inopportune choice of words. Strong, alas, is its tainted odour of soviet demagoguery and Jesuitical cunning. The pernicious, destructive essence of the Epistle, concerning which we spoke above, has been masterfully bundled up in words that are beautiful — but which, in their essence, are already spiritually impotent. Let us, for a moment, imagine a person inclined to union, of whom there are not a few.

With the Epistle in hand, he asks, "Just what is it that divides us?" and, point by point, he answers:

1. The MP is a grace-endowed, canonical Church. Why cannot one pray and receive the Mysteries in it?
2. Sergianism has been abrogated.
3. The New Martyrs have been glorified.
4. As for ecumenism, the greater number of the MP's hierarchs, as well as large masses of the clergy and laity, are opposed to it.

"The Bishops' Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad appeals to its flock with a new encouraging call to be faithful to the end. Your archpastors need to be assured of your love for, and of your trust in, patristic Russian Orthodoxy, which has been preserved by our Church, fidelity to which all the members of the Sobor of Bishops have confessed unanimously, time and time again."

We should also turn our attention to pghs. 8 and 7, in one of which they call upon us to be faithful to the end — not to Christ and not to His Holy Church, but to the Sobor of Bishops; while, in the other, they suddenly remind us about "being suspicious of others," of "creating alliances" for condemning others, etc.

"In vain would we declare to all the world that we stand in the Truth, if the members of our Church prefer not a life of personal virtue, but, rather, one of suspicion toward others, of quarrels, of the creation of alliances for condemning others, and of various such activities, which unsettle the life of the parish and of the eparchy. This is a perilous thing, which draws away into eternal perdition everyone who takes part in it. It inevitably casts a dark pall upon the face of our entire Church and weakens her witness."

Following that, they remind us, with no little hint of threat, of that perilous thing which draws away into eternal perdition everyone who takes part in it. Such a responsible document cannot contain within itself anything that is there by chance. This, too, is not by chance; it is written with a view to the inevitable flood of protests, turmoil [smuta] and division which this Epistle bears — both here, and also in our parishes in Russia.

And, finally, the latter:

"The Bishops' Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad appeals to its flock with a new encouraging call to be faithful to the end. Your archpastors need to be assured of your love for, and of your trust in, patristic Russian Orthodoxy, which has been preserved by our Church, fidelity to which all the members of the Sobor of Bishops have confessed unanimously, time and time again."

We know that one of the hierarchs did not sign the Epistle. Why the lies?

And also, after reading this Epistle, the [following] questions arise:

1. Since when has ROCOR ascribed any meaning, importance or value to the MP's conciliar decrees?

We did not recognize the MP’s glorification of bishops Ignatii Brianchaninov and Feofan the Recluse, and any glorification hitherto performed by them has been as naught — no less so, strictly speaking, than any of their ecclesiastical decrees have been.

2. Why, in this Epistle, was there no "light cast upon the MP’s considering ROCOR to be graceless schismatics" and upon their "demand that we return to the bosom of the mother-church" — which, yet again, proves their complete lack of repentance in adopting Metropolitan Sergii’s Declaration.

3. Those who read this Epistle are shocked at the vagueness of the wording, and the employment of non-ecclesiastical terms and concepts.

"It is therefore with well-intentioned sympathy that we salute the turning of the entire Russian nation to prayer to all* the holy New Martyrs** of Russia, and in particular to the Royal new martyrs, which has now become possible due to the recognition of their sanctity by the Sobor of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate. *** What gives us hope is the adoption of a new social concept**** by this sobor, which, in essence, blots out Metropolitan Sergii's 1927 "Declaration" by recognizing the supremacy of God's commandments over those demands of worldly authorities that would lead to the violation of religious and moral principles."

* The Sobor excluded St. Iosif of Petrograd from the Choir of New Martyrs.

** Sergianists were also glorified, along with the New Martyrs.

*** The New Martyrs of Russia have been glorified since 1981; prayers have long-since been addressed to them, and not just as of now.

**** The essence of Met. Sergii's Declaration does not consist of some "social concept"; rather, it is an act of betrayal, and a repudiation of Christ, of His Holy Church and of the New Martyrs of Russia.

"Being guided by the spirit of the Gospel, we recognize, with due awareness, just how difficult it is for the Church* in Russia to be freed from the consequences of having been enslaved by the soviet State regime and its atheistic ideology. This awareness moves us to treat with sympathy and good will the believers of the formerly enslaved Church, ** and to salute the substantial steps taken towards recovery in the life of the church in Russia."

* a) If, in employing the term "Church," the author had in view something other than the MP — then that is blasphemy against the Church, since the Church of Christ cannot be enslaved; she can only be persecuted.

* b) If, in employing the term "Church," the author had the MP in view — then that means that we, too, recognize it as being an actual church, which contradicts the doctrine of "one Catholic [Sobornaya] Apostolic Church." "In their epistles, the New Martyrs of Russia called the MP ‘the church of the wicked’."

** A theologically erroneous concept [see Pars. a) and b)].