'Uncanonical Orthodoxy'

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This morning I was reading an article in which there was a reference to 'uncanonical Orthodoxy'. This phrase is now so common that we often do not give any further thought to how much sense this phrase makes or whether it even represents an Orthodox way of putting things.
First of all what do we mean when we say 'uncanonical Orthodoxy'? Often we mean that a particular Orthodox group has no legitimate right to independently exist. Or that its Orthodox praxis is questionable. And in some cases we even mean that the group is hardly Orthodox at all. Obviously then we are using one word to refer to a number of different things. In many cases however the phrase 'noncanonical Orthodoxy' seems to have become a general term to refer to a group calling itself part of the Orthodox Church which we feel has no legitimate right to exist as such.
But what does the word 'canonical' actually mean? If you read the canons of the Church you soon discover that a canon is simply the rule of the Church. In the canons almost every aspect of Church life is dealt with from doctrine to basic matters of morality & discipline. Canons specify this & then state what should be done in regards to those who do not follow what the canon says.
What is instructive here is that in regards to those who do not follow the canons is specified a whole range of actions from excommunication all the way to admonition. It is non-canonical to reject the Divinity of Christ & if one does one may be excommunicated or separated from the Church- but it is also non-canonical to not read properly in the church. Obviously the significance of these two actions is vastly different. Whereas in the first example one could truly claim the result is that one is not Orthodox one could hardly claim this (although at times one would like to!) about those who chant or sing badly in the church. So in the eyes of the Church 'noncanonical' actually does not have the meaning which we often give it of being somehow or almost separated from the Church. Rather it just means that such and such is not according to the rule of the Church but the actual significance of this varies greatly. In many cases according to the canons themselves to say that something is 'not canonical' would just be saying that it is not correct according to the Church's life- which is a far cry from the recent use of the phrase which can challenge one's very Orthodoxy. So just making the claim 'non-canonical Orthodox' does not really mean very much unless we stop to explain in what way we mean this.
The danger of the phrase 'uncanonical Orthodoxy' at its worst extreme is that it is an oxymoron and makes no sense in its own right. If by the phrase we are questioning the very Orthodox legitimacy of the group then the phrase is a contradiction in terms and should simply be replaced with 'not Orthodox'. But if we mean by the phrase a disagreement about Orthodox praxis then this is a very different matter as shown by the witness of the canons themselves. Then it would be better to just say that we don't think such and such is correct Orthodox praxis rather than calling into question someone else's Orthodoxy.
The use of this phrase points to how questions of praxis have become confused with issues equal to that of the Faith itself. And like when a person throws up a red flag we suspect extreme danger ahead so the use of this phrase has become a common way of expressing fundamental disagreement with someone else's Orthodox praxis regardless of how or whether this praxis really goes against the actual inner 'logic' of the canons. If such is the case then we would do well to question whether such a way of thinking is itself canonical.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

Fr Raphael
I'm sure many would agree that the word "non-canonical" is too broad, covering everything from outright heresies to relatively minor transgressions. On the subject of church singing, I came across this gem some time ago, from http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/typikon/TOC.html:

The Typikon of the Russian Orthodox Church

Chapter 28: On disorderly cries

Disorderly cries by the church singers ought not to be allowed in church singing. And those who make them are not allowed either. Let them be removed from their ministry and sing in the church no more. For it is proper to sing according to the order, and with one accord to glorify the Master and Lord of all, as if coming from our hearts through one mouth. Those who disobey are condemned to eternal torture since they do not follow the tradition and rules of the holy Fathers.

Should be useful for church choirmasters to help them keep unruly singers in line... http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Edward Henderson]

I know I sound like a broken record, but the best explanation I have read about canonicity and non-canonicity, comes from Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos. As the Church is a spiritual hospital and sin a spiritual disease, the canons of the Church are cures to the sickness of sin. Just as a doctor must prescribe the right medicine (both which medicine and what amount) to his patient, so a Bishop and/or Priest must discern how to apply the canons with his spiritual children. Thus, we are highly mistaken when we view the canons as laws. This leads to either viewing them as archaic and irrelevant or legalism. This tends to be the case with many non-canonical, pseudo-orthodox groups. The Greek Old Calendarists, the Russian Old Believers fall into the legalistic group and by putting themselves above the Church, have found themselves outside the Church. There are also many other splinter, pseudo-orthodox groups these so called "Celtic Orthodox Church", "Kievan Patriarchate", "Independent Greek Orthodox Church of America", etc. The number of these such groups is huge. All of these groups, for various reasons, have found themselves in schism and therefore have no canonical status in the Orthodox Church.
Then we face the problem of "World Orthodoxy", that is the official Patriarchates and National Churches. Certain hierarchs, even synods of bishops, in these churches, have violated the canons. However, they are still the Orthodox Church because the maintain a clear apostolic succession. Also, the Church functions in a concilliar manner. Throughout Church history, heretics such as Arius, Nestorius, and others were not outside the Church until they were excommunicated and anathematized by an Ecclesiastical Synod. This is how I personally view contemporary deviations such as the New Calendar, or Orthodox participation in Ecumenism. These things are wrong and those clergy who preach religious syncretism (ie the 'branch' theory) are preaching heresy. However, the Church has not yet condemned them. The canons would allow this and perhaps it will happen one day. I have notice a rise in traditionalism in these official Churches. So, their actions maybe uncanonical, yet until they are condemned by an ecclesiastical synod, they are still in the Church.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Edward H wrote:


I know I sound like a broken record, but the best explanation I have read about canonicity and non-canonicity, comes from Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos. As the Church is a spiritual hospital and sin a spiritual disease, the canons of the Church are cures to the sickness of sin. Just as a doctor must prescribe the right medicine (both which medicine and what amount) to his patient, so a Bishop and/or Priest must discern how to apply the canons with his spiritual children. Thus, we are highly mistaken when we view the canons as laws.

This is a very important point. Reading through the canons carefully one sees that the diseases & cures are different- some have a cold, others bronchitis & others a potentially terminal cancer. We can say, "they are sick", but we still need to keep in mind that the canons themselves are much more specific than this. So much the more then do we need to be careful when the phrase 'noncanonical Orthodoxy' has become a catch-all to mean "he's a leper stay away from him!"

The analogy of an illness is useful in discerning about several Orthodox groups. A person can have an illness after all and still have many other positive qualities. When we make the claim 'noncanonical' without care and as an over-all condemnation then we overlook this. For example a number of national churches such as the Bulgarian had an 'uncanonical' beginning in the eyes of the Mother Church (in this case Constantinople). Obviously the Bulgarians felt that any uncanonical actions they had taken in the formation of their church were far out weighed by the legitimate canonical reasons for establishing an independent church. In this case it is the canonical legitimicy not as a legal category that is important but rather as reflecting the authentic life of the Church. It seems that at least in the long run this out weighs any administrative irregularities.

Another instructive example of how this can work is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Canada & the USA. Basically no one except (some of) the Ukrainians accepted their canonical status in Canada & America because they had been founded not only in open rebellion against the Mother Church (Church of Russia) but also their bishops were 'self-consecrated' by the laying on of hands by priests instead of by bishops. As time went on their bishops became regularised (ie consecrated by canonical bishops) and so the clergy they ordained were no longer suspect. Then in the last decade both groups went under the omophor of Constantinople. What is interesting is that at least in Canada the Ukrainians are really getting their house in order compared to the past. On the one hand we could say that this is because now they are canonical. But on the other hand it also shows that the charge of being noncanonical does not really add up to a death sentence in the eyes of the Church. After all- the Ukrainians have ended up obtaining for the most part exactly what was the noncanonical bone of contention in the first place- a high level of independence. And a number of Orthodox churches in North America were formed in this way.

A last example about being 'noncanonical'. The Russian Church Abroad is now talking about possible reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate and the rest of Orthodoxy. It would be instructive for those within SCOBA to be a fly on the wall on a rocor list as those most adamantly vs reconciliation try to explain how all of these Orthodox churches are 'noncanonical' in the way they were founded or in their Orthodox praxis. Here I think that Edward's point is very important. In fact there are always aspects of Orthodox life within each church & jurisdiction which are 'noncanonical'. But we must discern whether what we are calling noncanonical is a potential terminal cancer, a serious disease, the flu or just a nick on a finger.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: "Disorderly cries by the church singers ought not to be allowed in church singing... Those who disobey are condemned to eternal torture since they do not follow the tradition and rules of the holy Fathers."
Oh lead me not into temptation! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

[Ken McRae]

Fr Raphael originally posted:-

>> "The Russian Church Abroad is now talking about possible reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate and the rest of Orthodoxy ... we must discern whether what we are calling noncanonical is a potential terminal cancer, a serious disease, the flu or just a nick on a finger." <<

Dear Fr Raphael,

On this past Good Friday (Old Calendar), I set out in my car for the ROCA Toronto Church, only to later realize I had forgotten how to get there, since it was about 7 years since I was last there. I ended up turning around disappointed, unable to find it. When home, I checked its location on the Net, (which I should've done before setting out, but neglected to,) and came across the following.

1 - Russian Orthodox Church in Exile - Masonville, Ontario, Canada. This jurisdiction was formed in late 2001 by Metropolitan Vitaly soon after he was retired as first hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR). Metropolitan Vitaly's action is most likely a protest over the thaw in relations between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Vitaly is vehemently against ROCOR's rapprochement with Moscow. (http://a_g_green_jr.tripod.com/OtherOrthodox.html)

2 - Declaration of the ROCE Synod Of Bishops - 26 October / 8 November 2001 (http://www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com/ukasenov8.html)

The first link above is actually to a list of non-canonical Churches that refer to themselves as "Orthodox". The canonical problems with all the different "Orthodox" jurisdictions, both in America and abroad, has been the single biggest obstruction for me, in my journey, second only to the question of papal primacy.

According to METROPOLITAN VIYALY (http://www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com/vitaly.html), (of the old "canonical" jurisdiction of the ROCA,) the Moscow Patriarchate is "terminal", which is to say, "graceless". Whether he thinks it'll always be in a graceless and irreconcilable state is unclear to me.

How does one, though, like myself, looking from the outside in, find the "true" Church in the midst of all the confusion and 'in-fighting'? I'd say this is the single biggest obstruction to the spread and advancement of the Orthodox cause (faith) in the West. These difficulties appear to multiply with each passing year, or is that just the devil toying with my imagination?

in humility,
Theophilus

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Theophilus,

You really don't need to get too worked up over it, other than to pray for Metropolitan Vitaly who is being seriously medicated and exploited by those he trusts for very political purposes. These things happen. Families have spats and sometimes they don't acknowledge each other or even talk to each other for periods, but sometimes they do make up. Even the Catholic Church has their "Old Catholic" contingents, every group is going to have their reactionaries.

[Owen Jones]

The presence of the True Church is not dependent on natinoalistic arguments over jurisdiction, as troubling as that might be. The problem with the Russian Church is political and spiritual to be sure, because it's hierarchy is controlled by the KGB, and it has not repented for that. But how about we blame the communists for that, and not the Church. There is no perfect Church home. Imagine what it was like when the overwhelming body of the faithful were Arians, or Donatists. Today, there are no fundamental theological disagreements among all of the jurisdictions. The arguments by traditionalists against some Greeks has more to do with laxity than anything. Laxity is not heresy or sectarianism.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Theophilus,

You asked,


How does one, though, like myself, looking from the outside in, find the "true" Church in the midst of all the confusion and 'in-fighting'? I'd say this is the single biggest obstruction to the spread and advancement of the Orthodox cause (faith) in the West. These difficulties appear to multiply with each passing year, or is that just the devil toying with my imagination?

I think that God leads a person into the Church through a real parish with real people. It is in this way that we can find Christ. This does not mean that we will be free of struggle for Christ Himself allows the struggle in order that we find Him.

I'm not sure if there are really more conflicts within Orthodoxy now or not. We have just come through a period in which there was division within the Church as to how we were to face the political & moral trauma of the 20th century. When we consider how traumatic this experience was for all of humanity (Two World Wars, political & moral revolutions, etc) it is no surprise that this affected the Church & its people so deeply. Now however there is more unity of mind & heart within the Church as a whole and for many people the most important question is how to heal the divisions. So although conflict and division still remain part of this arises over the question of how these divisions should be healed.

If we can manage to find our place within the Church then the many challenges that lie ahead of us will not be stumbling blocks but will rather be doors through which we can find Christ Who is the Head of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

Let's not forget the Church represents all of creation, all of humanity. The true Church is that which fully represents God's image, on behalf of all, for all. This is a mystical concept, with practical consequences and practical allegiances and the right attitudes and customs and rules and disciplines and beliefs. All of that, including, most importantly, the right spirit and tone. While canonicity is an important factor, it is not the only factor in determining the True Church.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> I thought the KGB was a thing of the past. If it isn't the KGB of today certainly is doing a very poor job of controlling the so called Russian mafia (actually it is a Jewish mafia; their leader, a Russian/Jewish guy who is called "Tarzan" now resides back and forth between the USA, Russia and Israel....that is if he is still alive!). Vasilis

[Herman Blaydoe]

The problem with the Russian Church is political and spiritual to be sure, because it's hierarchy is controlled by the KGB, and it has not repented for that.

Two logical problems with this statement:

1. If it is STILL "controlled" by the KGB, how would they be expected to "repent" until they are no longer "controlled"?

2. Last I heard, communism has collapsed and the KGB no longer exists, unless you want to believe the propoganda of certain reactionary elements who fear the change that accepting the present reality represents.

Another issue I have with this statement is that the MP HAS already expressed regret for what happened under the communist domination, so I am not sure how much more is going to be required. Perhaps the MP should dress in rags and cover himself with ashes and parade himself through the streets of Moscow inviting lashes from passersby and loudly proclaiming "forgive me!"?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I had more of a chance this morning to take a look at the webpage "Religious groups that use 'Orthodox' in their names but are not canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches."
Most of the groups listed are really far out of the field. They are close to being or are actually cults and are not even to be called Christian denominations, little lone Orthodox.
A few others have begun within the mainstream Orthodox Church and for various reasons have chosen to witness to the Faith by walling themselves off from the rest of mainline Orthodoxy. As one of these groups puts it (not however on the list) this is to protect themselves from compromise while still having some positive relationship with the rest of Orthodoxy. Such groups although seperate are usually not Matthewite.
As to how one sorts all of this out I have no clear answer. Of course if one knows better at the beginning then we should have a general picture of where the Orthodox Church is and isn't. Here one needs to avoid being hyper-critical on the one hand and being easily manipulated by something which is really only a cult on the other. Since discernment and humble obedience are stressed in Orthodoxy however one can still fall into various traps mistaking the false coin for the real. If we are honest with ourselves we will acknowledge that there are fallen aspects of ourselves which can thrive, even willingly, in the most distorted environments and the most twisted versions of what the Church really is. So at times we should just acknowledge that within such groups we simply see falleness attracted to falleness. There is little one can do about this except to watch, pray and be careful oneself.
One the other hand within such groups (I am not talking of those groups way out of the field) there are also many of good will who are truly seeking to be faithful to Christ and His Church. I have met one person in such a group who said he was with them 'not over politics' (his phrase) but because he felt that he had been pastorally abandoned in the mainline group where he was before and that he was more cared for where he was now. I met another mother who was taking her family to what many would consider a schismatic church because she said she wanted for her family something both in English & traditional. Such considerations are important and even if such would not be our choice they show that there are those of good will among such groups. Often they do provide an important witness to mainstream Orthodoxy. Here is a struggle between self-will taking such a group completely over the edge and the struggle for faithfulness which can change the character of such groups. The most critical factor though in this is the leadership- if they are really open to how the Holy Spirit works within the Church then they can humbly change course. If not, the leadership will perceive any fundamental change as a threat to their power & influence (and maybe it is!) and will dig in their heels and try to manipulate the faithful into obeying them and resisting change. Here the most extreme examples of psychological manipulation can be found- the group is then on the knife edge of deciding whether they want to be part of Christ's Church or not. If they reject this the extreme danger is that any good in the spirit of the group dries up and they really do become a cult. In this dynamic although it is very difficult for the faithful (you really have to put God above men which destroys a lot of close relationships) they are culpable if they choose human over Godly considerations and do not break free from something which is harmful to them.
Most times however God leads people into the Orthodox Church through 'normal' Orthodox parishes
long before they know anything of the above confusion. A normal amount of discernment accompanied by a healthy dose of reading about the Orthodox Church helps keep most on course.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Owen Jones]

In answer to Mr. Blaydoe's question, a resounding "YES!" The KGB still runs Russia, only not under that name. Under the Soviet State, one could not be Patriarch without KGB approval and some bishops were actually KGB agents. This is why many Orthodox Christians did not and still do not actually attend Church. I fear the Patriarchate is still in many ways a tool of the state in Russia (which is run by a former KGB agent). Now, this is an historical problem, not a theological problem per se, and it will take a long time to sort it all out.

[Fabio Lins]

The KGB just changed it name. No state, under no revolution, would ever dismantle such a useful and far-reaching intelligence service but only redirect it to its new interests. I doubt that control of religion would ever cease to be an interest of any political elite and all the political elite of Russia today is somehow related to "ex"-KGB, including Putin himself. Putin said recently that he USSR's fall was the greatest geopolitical loss of the XX century, showing that he admires the "way things were" and thus that he strives to make things as closer as possible to that.
As for the fall of Communism, it is just a misrepresentation. The largest communist *state* fell, not the ideal. Here in Brazil and in all Latin-America communist Theology of Libertation is the largest ideological trend in Roman Catholicism and they *would* try to infiltrate Orthodoxy should it grow here.
As for the relations of the Russian intelligence service and the Russia mafia they have diverging and converging interests (the Russia mafia may destabilize opposing governments in other countries, may pay huge bribes and be source of money, may serve for cover-up operations). One cannot think of them in black-and-white terms.

Notice that none of this is paranoia, but just some geopolitical awareness. To think that the Church in Russia is not under these influences is counterproductive. If anything, the other jurisdictions should help the Russian clergy in getting less and less influenced by that country's geopolitical interests.

[Andrew Williams]

The KGB still runs Russia, only not under that name. Under the Soviet State, one could not be Patriarch without KGB approval and some bishops were actually KGB agents. This is why many Orthodox Christians did not and still do not actually attend Church.

Leaving aside the question as to whether one could be said to be an Orthodox Christian and not 'attend' Church, I'm not entirely clear whether you are suggesting that all priests in Russia are in some way either affiliated to the FSB (new name for KGB) or tainted by its past infiltration of church structures. I have to say that KGB infiltration of the Patriarchate, if such still exists in any really meaningful form, is not a problem that has a great deal of impact on the everyday life of most Orthodox Christians in Russia, or of most parishes, in my experience, except for a few conspiracy theorists.

As for the KGB still running Russia, what does this mean nowadays except that there is a certain "old boys' club" of power-hungry politicians and their associates in the various federal power structures who like to keep as much power and wealth as possible "in the family" as it were -- is this so different from many other countries?

Yes of course Russia has a particular history, and there are many ways things could have gone better in dealing with the Soviet legacy (there are also many ways in which things could have gone worse), and the impact of many aspects of Soviet life will take a long time to die away completely (although the incredible changes over the last 15 years have to be seen to be believed), but as I stand in Church in the liturgy with the saints around I am rather reminded of how the Church is still here and the Soviet Union is not. The altar was desecrated, the church was misused for decades, but now the liturgy goes on as it did before -- the icons and church furnishings are new, the church itself is old, and the Church and its liturgy are timeless; the Soviet Union has already passed away.

[Owen Jones]

The Patriarchate is tainted. It will take a long time to overcome that legacy. So the mere fact that the Russian Patriarchate is canonical, which is the subject here, does not mean that it should be given a pass. There are many good bishops and priests in Russia that are not tainted. But it is the Patriarchate that represents the totality of the Church. I am not saying that ROCOR should not merge with the Patriarchate. Maybe that's a good thing. I don't know. I am simply saying that canonicity alone is not a sufficient definition of the True Church.

As for the communists, they are basically thugs. So when you remove some of the ideology, you still have thugs. You have the same people running Russia and Eastern Europe as before -- thugs. But you will not see much criticism of that from the Patriarch. Also, look at the money trail. How much money is the Patriarchate getting out of all this new thuggery?

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear all,

There is much good news as well and it is often transmitted through the leadership of monastics.

Here is a good example.

http://www.chicagodiocese.org/news_050402_1.html?PHPSESSID=ff91caaacc7e036aebb8f 63123fdba98

On March 23, His Grace Bishop Longin addressed the clergy of the Chicago and Detroit Diocese on the reconciliation of the Serbian Church. His Grace stated, in part, the following:

"The Serbian Church, in the period after the war, passed through one of the greatest temptations in her history. In 1963, the 'American Schism' occurred, brought about firstly as the result of our spiritual state, and greatly helped along by the communist regime in the Fatherland.

"This conflict in the Church, in part due to the political state of our people, grew into a serious ecclesiastical problem. This can be seen in the fact that the Bishop of America and Canada, Dionisije, along with a good portion of the clergy, was defrocked; they, being separated from the Church, created the 'Free American-Canadian Diocese.' Their excuse for remaining outside the embrace of the Church was the communist regime. They stated that they would not listen to any orders coming from Belgrade, because they were under the influence of the godless regime. I remind you that this was an administrative schism, which did not involve any heretical teachings of the church. The Assembly of the Serbian Church did not accurately evaluate the spiritual and political reality of those times. When things began to take the wrong course, it was all very difficult to stop. Unfortunately, our people in America, Australia, and Canada, and in some parts of Europe, went through unbelievable difficulties. They became disunited, estranged, spiritually crippled. The schism divided households and families. Thus, there were cases where a father would be on one side, and his son on the other; one brother on one side, and the other in the oppositionÉ

"During the course of the schism, there were attempts to resolve this problem, but they all paled in the attempt, and, of course, did not bear fruit. Both sides of the schism felt greatly insulted, all made accusations, and it seemed as though this would never come to an end. The American court system benefited from our quarrels. Imagine, we brought about one of the longest and most expensive court cases in the United States. It lasted a full 17 years. Millions of dollars were spent, and thousands of insults and accusations were made. The Serbian Church ultimately won the case, but this was no longer of any use to anybody. The situation remained the same. We were disunited, with a large portion of the people remaining outside of the Church, and not even aware of it.

"After all of this failure of useless attempts to reunite, the things we were not able to do, God did. God Himself helped us by, at the appropriate time, bringing Patriarch Pavle to the head of the Church. Patriarch Pavle is the personification of sainthood. He is spiritual, pious, and humble. These are the virtues that adorn a true servant of God. Metropolitan Irinej, who headed the 'Free Diocese of America and Canada,' soon to be the 'Metropolitanate of New Gracanica,' joined to help him in the great task of resolving the question of the schism in such a manner that even today we are not fully aware of the meaning and greatness of this moment. The Patriarch covered all our sins with his love. He was ready to 'kneel' before the people of the former 'Free Diocese' and to tell them: 'come, brothers, under the wings of the Church.' The Patriarch was not demanding justice, he did not try to place blame, he did not become fixated on any minute details, but rather filled with true pastoral concern for the faithful members of the Church, he protected them all in a fatherly manner.

"The Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, at the suggestion of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod, returned the dignity to the bishops and majority of the clergy, as well as that of the people, the former 'Free Diocese of America and Canada,' and this was crowned with the Holy Liturgy on the Feast of the Meeting of the Lord in Belgrade in 1992.

"With the achievement of Eucharistic unity, not all of the problems were resolved in regard to administration, but we are working on that. Ultimately, that is not a key question in the Church. Pastorally it is first important to be united through the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are really spiritually united, ecclesiastical order has been established, and everything else will be accomplished in due time. The wound on the body of the Church and people has been healed. Now we are gradually solving the problem of the reorganization of the diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church on this continent.

"I consider this to be a great success in our Church and a definite act of God. I feel that nobody else could have so successfully accomplished this task, as did Patriarch Pavle. The implementation of a purely judicial method in this case would have left us disunited for a long time, considering the character of the Serbian people.

"Keeping all this in mind, the case of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate appears quite simple. As far as I know, nobody was been defrocked in this conflict. Because of this fact, this division in many ways does not seem to be as serious a conflict. In any case, it does not even minimally have the same characteristics as the Serbian schism.

"In my opinion, it would be a blessing in the true sense of that word, for the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to confirm the unity at their Assemblies. After all, in the spiritual sense, that unity always existed. This would be the most dignified way to resolve this important question. And believe me this would have a positive effect on all Orthodoxy. The Russian Orthodox Church today has an important mission in the role of strengthening the Church amongst our Russian Orthodox brothers. Without a doubt, this would also help to strengthen us Serbs as well as other Orthodox peoples. With such an act, a brighter future and role of the Orthodox Church would arise throughout the world. For that we pray to God, and in the spirit of brotherly love, we greet all of you gathered here today.

+Bishop Longin"

[Fabio Lins]

KGB employed at least 400 thousand people directly, not counting all who were unofficially employed which some claim to have reached almost a million people internationally. To say that such power, influence, contacts and structure would simply vanish into thin air is misconceiving. It´s like "Oh, I have the money, the power, the status, the influence, the contacts, but, oh no, we lost the cold war, I´ll give it all away right now, distribute the money among the poor, stop talking to my allies and stop bullying those bellow me...." happened 400 thousand times with all those involved. It´s not an "old´s boy club". It´s a *very* powerful political elite, not only in Russia but in the world.

Besides, what happened in the socialist-communist world with the fall of its greates state was not giving up, but change of strategies from an onver-centralized approach to a descentralized one:
Political activist and philosopher wanna-be, Antonio Gramsci, Italian, with weak health and with an appearence truly fragile, had one of these grotesque minds that, attached to its innermost values, develops all sorts of ingenuities and processes to make these values universal at any cost.

When noticing the unsustainable level of violence that the Bolshevik party had to use to maintain the sour fruits of revolution in Russia and the later defeat of revolutionary groups in countries that were economically and socially developed, Gramsci realized that the structure of power in society is not supported by mere economic factors only – as Marx had described – but by the interpretation that the classes gave to those factors, that it was an essentially cultural phenomena – which Marx had described and social superstructure of secondary importance.

By this inversion of concepts – affirming the superiority of superstructure over structure – Gramsci recreated the revolutionary process without abandoning its marxist fundaments: what moves History is still the fight between classes, capitalism is still a system based on the exploitation of the weaker – carrying in itself contradictions that will lead it to ruins, and men are still mere pieces in greater collectivity. Nevertheless, power, so strongly desired, must exist in a two-fold nature: one formal and objective, essencially structural, the State. The second is inprecise and abstract, with a conjectural basis relative to civil society; this face is called hegemony.

To grasp power, according to Gramsci’s concepts, it is necessary first to grasp hegemony, making social institutions mere mechanisms of party propaganda, to destroy society from inside in a slow but mortal attack to all forms of resistance.

Gramsci’s strategy, it is good to remember, cannot be compared to a cancer that feeds on the body until consuming all its strength and health. It is more like an Imunodefficiency Syndrome, which destroys the body through the slow neutralization against opportunistic invaders.(...)
Gramsci’s concern with revolutionary violence is not moral, but instrumental.. His strategy of taking power through positions taking – trench war – uses a lot of violent resources previously used by orthodox revolutionaries, like misinformation, ideological manipulation of the masses, enlarging State (in an advanced stage of the revolution) and, at last, rupture, which would not refuse, if necessary, traditional violence as in revolutionary movements being but the a last fatal and efficient strike.

Gramscian thinking is a totalitarian force that not even Hitler or Stalin dared to dream. The hegemony Gramsci writes about has never existed in any society – much less in the bourgois society. For if hegemony is the absolute control of collective conscience, how would this bourgeois society – which, according to Gramsci is hegemonic – allow the growing in its midst of forces that almost took it to near extinction: with Marxism, Communism, Fascism and Nazism? When blaming bourgeois society of having a never-thought-before force, Gramsci is simply legitimizing the strugle for this same force, giving to the members of the party license to act above all conceivable morals.

In what concerns the Church, Gramscian "trench war" strategy consists of "do not face it, join it!" In fact, not even joining it is that much necessary so long as through media and pressure groups church members are "forced" to think in "social" patterns that are, in fact, socialist/communist patterns. That is what Theology of Liberation is about in Latin-American countries and I doubt that Russian "ex"-KGB strategists are unaware of the this strategy of taking over by cultural trench war and they sure have the resources and influence to put it forward.

[Fabio Lins]

About KGB, it is better to listen to the specialists. Here is a link to a symposium with 3 of them:

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service, whose book Red Horizons was republished in 24 countries;

James Woolsey, director of the CIA from 1993-95 and a former Navy undersecretary and arms-control negotiator;

Vladimir Bukovsky, a former leading Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for his fight for freedom, and whose works include To Build a Castle and Judgement in Moscow.

Symposium on KGB (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13210)

And here, the first lines:

Frontpage Magazine: Gentlemen, welcome to Frontpage Symposium. It is a privilege to be in the company of three distinguished titans.



Mr. Bukovsky, perhaps I will begin with you. Could you kindly get us started on this discussion of the resurrection of the KGB in Russia? How real is this development and what are its main ingredients?



Bukovsky: Our national tragedy (as well as the tragedy of all other former communist countries) is that there was no clear defeat of the ruling communist system, no Nuremberg-style trial of its crimes, no vigorous lustration (de-communisation) process. The West was quick to celebrate the end of the Cold War and the victory of democracy in the former Iron Curtained countries, but in reality there was no change of "elites" there. The former communist "nomenklatura" has remained in the position of power in all branches of the government, albeit under a different name.

[Owen Jones]

I would add to the above, the Patriarchate.

[Andrew Williams]

I think this is getting a little of topic now, this thread. I would like to make clear that I agree completely with what Bukovsky said, no question. If my use of the expression 'old boys' club' gave you the impression I didn't think that it is sinister, powerful or international then I apologize: it is clearly all three (as are other 'old boys' clubs). The degree to which this particular elite has the power to influence the Body of Christ is what I was interested in elucidating. I don't intend to participate in a political discussion here, and I don't think such a political discussion would solve much, anyway. As far as I can see, all forms of worldly power are corrupting of the human soul, and the more they become separated from Christ the more corrupting they get. This shouldn't be news to anyone here.

[leandros]

I do not want to stretch logic until it breaks, but let me point out that in a way everybody is "un-canonically Orthodox". What makes the canonicity to surface from non-canonical behavior is the existence of honest, personal, loving relation with God.

It is often forgotten that "the rules were made for the man", and not "the man was made for the rules".

Canons do not express the reality of Orthodoxy; they merely express the historical record of deviations from Ortho-praxis (healthy behavior) by expressing the true Orthopraxis.

Canons are NOT Orthodoxy, they are historical human rules that expressed, in a synodical fashion, the health of Orthodox life as it was experienced from the glorified members of the Church.

In this context, it is not the human justification that gives the label of "Orthodox canonical", through the practice of canonical schemes. It is the presence of the Spirit of Pentecost that transforms the human faintness to strength and this same Spirit is Who completes the human deficiency.

In this context the Russian Church of the Soviet time, with the absolute soviet control of her hierarchy and her clergy, was a fully canonical Orthodox church.

My final point is the same with that of Fr Raphael Vereshack and that of Edward Henderson: Reading through the canons carefully one sees that the diseases & cures are different- some have a cold, others bronchitis & others a potentially terminal cancer. We can say, "they are sick", but we still need to keep in mind that the canons themselves are much more specific than this.

[Ken McRae]

ON THE COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:-

01 - THE COMMUNIST INFILTRATION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY (http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr33/cr33pg16.asp)

By Most Holy Family Benedictine Monastery,
Berlin, New Jersey

In his great encyclical ON ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM, Pope Pius XI pointed out that "the most persistent enemies of the Church who from Moscow are directing the struggle against Christian civilization, themselves bear witness ... that the Papacy ... has called public attention to the perils of Communism more frequently and more effectively than any other public authority on earth." (par.6) If then the Catholic Church is such an effective opponent of Communism, it is obvious that the annihilation of the opposition would be top priority for the Marxist-Leninists. It must be destroyed, if not by direct destruction, then by infiltration and subversion.

For years there have been rumors and reports of infiltration of the Church by Communists who would enter seminaries and be ordained priests for the purpose of destroying the Church from within. We present here strong and undeniable confirmation of these rumors. The following are quotes and paraphrases from ex-communists themselves who admit that Moscow had ordered, directed and implemented a terrifyingly successful strategy for the infiltration of the Church.

Albert Vassert, a former member of the French Communist Party revealed in 1955 that Moscow had issued a 1936 order that carefully selected members of the Communist youth enter seminaries, and after training, receive ordination as priests. Some of these were to infiltrate religious orders, particularly the Dominicans. (In his essay "Satan at Work", Deitrich von Hildebrand reported that the French Dominicans had become so Communistic in their 'evangelization' that in 1953, the Order barely escaped dissolution by the order of Pope Pius XII).

Kremlin Orders Infiltration of Catholic Clergy

Mr. Manning Johnson, a former official of the Communist Party in America gave the following testimony in 1953 to the House Unamerican Activities Committee:

"Once the tactic of infiltration of religious organizations was set by the Kremlin ... the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the Church by Communists operating within the Church itself. The Communist leadership in the United States realized that the infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions and religious make-up peculiar to this country. In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available to them, it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen in the paths conducive to Communist purposes."

Further on in his testimony, Mr. Johnson pointed out the grim fact that: THIS POLICY OF INFILTRATING SEMINARIES WAS SUCCESSFUL BEYOND EVEN OUR COMMUNIST EXPECTATIONS." "It is the axiom of Communist organization's strategy that if a body has 1% Communist Party and 9% Party sympathizers, this 10% can effectively control the remaining 90% who act and think on an individual basis."

Mr. Johnson further testified that the goals of this infiltration were twofold:

1 - To make the Catholic Church no longer effective against Communism.

2 - To direct clerical thinking away from the spiritual and toward the temporal and political ... hence, the preaching of the "social gospel".

[Editor's note: DID YOU KNOW that the Second Vatican Council only mentioned Communism in one footnote of its entire 16 documents? During the Council, a petition signed by 454 Council Fathers requesting that Communism receive explicit treatment was "mysteriously misplaced". Since Vatican II, the Church now "dialogues" with Communists instead of opposing them ... a Marxist's dream come true!]

In [the] U.S.A. 1100 Young Radicals Entered Clergy in 1930's

Mrs. Bella Dodd spent most of her life in the Communist Party in America and was Attorney General designate had the Party won the White House. After her defection, she revealed that one of her jobs as a Communist agent was to encourage young radicals (not always card-carrying Communists) to enter Catholic seminaries. She said that before she had left the Party in the United States, she herself had encouraged almost 1,000 young radicals to infiltrate the seminaries and religious orders ... and she was only one Communist.

Brother Joseph Natale, Superior of Most Holy Family Monastery, was present at one of Bella Dodd's lectures in the early 1950's. He relates, "I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world's greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion against the Catholic Church."

A Number Now Are Bishops

He explains: "She said that of all the world's religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent. Speaking as an ex-Communist, she said 'In the 1930's, we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.' The idea was for these men to be ordained, and then climb the ladder of influence and authority -- to come to be monsignors and bishops. Back then she said 'RIGHT NOW THEY ARE IN THE HIGHEST PLACES, and they are working to bring about change in order that the Catholic Church will no longer be effective against Communism.' She also said that the changes would be so drastic that 'you will not recognize the Catholic Church'. (Note, this was about 10 to 12 years before the Second Vatican Council.)

The Plot to Destroy Our Faith

Once these men had become bishops, their influence could be widely spread because 'Bishops beget bishops,' and these agents would use their influence to elevate and promote clergymen who were not necessarily dedicated Communists, but who were of a progressive and liberal mentality, and whose influence could be counted on to foster a new philosophy and theology within the ranks of the clergy. Once the clergy were infected, they would pass on this infection to the laity. The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the FAITH of the people; and even use the institution, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion, something that resembled Catholicism, but was not quite the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, then the dismantling of the institution would take place.

"She explained that there would be a guilt-complex introduced into the Church ... to label the 'Church of the past' as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame the Church leaders into an 'openness to the world', and to a more flexible attitude toward all other religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church. Mrs. Dodd in effect was describing the 'ecumenism' that was to come. And now, Our Lady of Fatima's grave warnings have come to pass. Russia has spread her errors, even into the very bosom of the Church."

This Was No Accident

The present worldwide devastation and crises of faith within the Church, therefore, is by no means an unexplainable phenomenon. It is far too complete to be an accident. Nothing was left to chance. Nothing was left untouched. There is not a single aspect of Catholicism whether it be liturgy, catechisms, seminaries, sacraments or anything else whatsoever that has not in some way been changed, watered-down, subverted or removed since the so-called Vatican II "renewal". It is obvious that "An enemy has done this" ... the enemies are the demons unleashed from hell referred to by Our Lady of La Salette operating through the organism of Communism warned of by Our Lady of Fatima. Since we have willfully turned our back on God, He is now allowing us to be scourged by the very demons of hell whose evil and immorality we so willingly embrace in our modern age. Our Lady of Fatima gave us the answer, if only we are willing to listen. She said, "Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the world for its crimes ... man must cease offending God." Therefore, it is only by man giving up sin, turning back to God, learning God's revelation, living his faith and fulfilling the requests of Our Lady of Fatima that peace, sanity, order and holiness will ever return to our Church and our world.

02 - On the Infiltration of the Catholic Church (http://www.tldm.org/News6/VaticanII-1.htm)

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand recalled, during an interview with Latin Mass magazine, that "Bella Dodd told my husband and me that when she was an active [Communist] party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican 'who were working for us'." (Latin Mass magazine, Summer 2001)

03 - The 'Prophecy' of Bella Dodd (http://hunter.gremlin.net/dpd/?cat=10)

In light of the current confusion and moral scandal in the Church, it would be well to consider a neglected bit of recent Church history: the public testimony of Bella Dodd, who served as legal counsel to the Communist Party in the United States until her conversion to Catholicism, after which she spent the rest of her life atoning for her role in the Communist infiltration of the Catholic Church.

An article in Christian Order magazine (November 2000) recounts how Dodd and her associate, Douglas Hyde, revealed the plan for Communist subversion of the Church. Ex-Communist and celebrated convert Douglas Hyde revealed long ago that in the 1930s the Communist leadership issued a worldwide directive about infiltrating the Catholic Church, while in the early 1950s, Mrs. Bella Dodd was also providing detailed explanations of the Communist subversion of the Church. Speaking as a former high-ranking official of the American Communist Party, Mrs. Dodd said: “In the 1930s we put eleven hundred men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within.”

The idea was for these men to be ordained and progress to positions of influence and authority as Monsignors and Bishops. A dozen years before Vatican II she stated: “Right now they are in the highest places in the Church,” where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism. She also said that these changes would be so drastic that “you will not recognise the Catholic Church.”

Dodd gave voluminous testimony on Communist infiltration of Church and State before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the 1950s. In a lecture at Fordham University during that time, Dodd unveiled what would seem to be an uncanny prophecy of future chaos in the Church. The lecture was attended by a monk whose account of the talk is presented in Christian Order:

I listened to that woman for four hours and she had my hair standing on end. Everything she said has been fulfilled to the letter. You would think she was the world’s greatest prophet, but she was no prophet. She was merely exposing the step-by-step battle plan of Communist subversion of the Catholic Church. She explained that of all the world’s religions, the Catholic Church was the only one feared by the Communists, for it was its only effective opponent.

The whole idea was to destroy, not the institution of the Church, but rather the Faith of the people, and even use the institution of the Church, if possible, to destroy the Faith through the promotion of a pseudo-religion: something that resembled Catholicism but was not the real thing. Once the Faith was destroyed, she explained that there would be a guilt complex introduced into the Church … to label the “Church of the past” as being oppressive, authoritarian, full of prejudices, arrogant in claiming to be the sole possessor of truth, and responsible for the divisions of religious bodies throughout the centuries. This would be necessary in order to shame Church leaders into an “openness to the world,” and to a more flexible attitude toward all religions and philosophies. The Communists would then exploit this openness in order to undermine the Church.

Does any of this sound familiar? Unless you have been comatose since Vatican II, you would be aware that Bella Dodd was describing the state of the Church of the New Order today. Today, post-conciliar churchmen wallow in guilt over the Church’s “intolerant” past rather than glory in the fact that the Church made our vaunted western civilization, make public apologies for the alleged sins of dead Catholics but fail to recognize their own greater sins against the living faithful, and extol the virtues of other religions while ignoring the lethal aims of Reformation Protestants, Communist Russian Orthodox, and Muslim radicals.

Bella Dodd was no prophet. She merely told us what the infiltrators of the Church were planning to do. And, lo, they have done it, in the process making fools and patsies even of popes, cardinals, and bishops and turning them to serve “the dark side,” whether wittingly or unwittingly.

04 - Confessions of a Communist Agent On The Attempt to Destroy the Roman Catholic Church from Within (http://www.aculink.net/~catholic/aa1025.htm)

I. Introduction.

This is the story of a Communist agent who infiltrated into the Catholic Church in 1938, went to the Seminary, became a Priest who wielded enormous power behind the scene, participated in the Second Vatican Council, and without the intervention of Pope Paul VI himself he would have destroyed its works. He succeeded, however, in fostering the adoption of ambiguous Council documents which laid the ground work for future experiments by unsuspecting Prelates and Priests. These experiments based on the "Spirit of the Council" are destroying the 2,000-year Traditions of the Church, leading the Catholic faithful on the road to the Great Apostasy, and preparing the Church for the election of the Anti-Pope and for the reception of the coming Anti-Christ. He stated: "'The Spirit of the Council' has become for me a master-trump." The reader should observe that many harmful changes that the agent proposed have been implemented, some in direct disobedience to the the Pope, at the local dioceses throughout the world.

This agent had no name, only a code number AA-1025 given by the Russian Secret Police, meaning the Anti-Apostle number 1025. There had been 1024 agents like him before him. By now there must have been at least several thousands of them in the Catholic Church. Some must have risen to the rank of Archbishop and Cardinal, many of whom could have been heads of Departments in the Curia (Papal government) and religious Congregations. No wonder the 2000-year Traditions of the Church are being slowly demolished and replaced by heresies like Modernism, Arianism, Pelagian, Protestantism, Atheism, Liberation Theology. Nevertheless, Our Lord stated: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18).

Further, Our Lord promised: "Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world." (Matthew 28:20). This should be understood literally, i.e. Our Lord Jesus Christ is living really and truly among the Catholic faithfull in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity every day on the Altar in the Mass and in all Tabernacles until the end of the world, even during the persecution of the Church by the Anti-Christ. One can cite many Eucharistic miracles throughout centuries to prove this. One of the most famous miracles if that of Lanciano, Italy in 8th century. There, the Host turned into flesh and wine blood. The Eucharistic flesh of Lanciano was examined by Dr. Linoli and Dr. Bertelli in Siena, Italy in 1971. They concluded that the flesh was striated muscular tissue of the myocardium (heart wall) of human origin, and the blood was of type AB. (cf. Joan Carroll Cruz, Eucharistic Miracles, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books, 1987).

The latest miracle was wrought through Julia Kim, a Korean housewife and a stigmatist. On October 31, 1995, Julia visited the Vatican and attended a Mass said by Pope John Paul II. At Communion, she received the Consecrated Host which immediately turned into live flesh and blood on her tongue. This was winessed by the Pope. Its was also witnessed by Msgr. Paik who testified that as the Sacred Host was turning into Flesh and Blood, it also became larger and formed the shape of a heart. This was the 12th Eucharistic miracle that Julia experienced. The 11th was in Naju, South Korea, on September 22, 1995 when the Sacred Host also turned into live Flesh and Blood on her tongue during a Mass celebrated by Bishop Roman Danylak from Toronto, Canada. (For color photos and video of these miracles, write or call Mary's Touch By Mail, P.O. Box 1668, Gresham, OR 97030, Phone: (503) 669-8443, Fax: (503) 669-7023.)

As Our Lord said: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Luke 21:33). Thus, the Church will never be destroyed as has been hoped by its enemies but always survive in her faithful remnant.

The Agent died in the hospital after a car accident. The nurse (Marie Carre) who attended him found the memoirs in his brief case. After she read it, she decided to publish the memoirs for the world to know why the Catholic Church has been undergoing destructive changes to the lament of its faithful. The English translation is published under the title AA 1025, The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle by Éditions Saint-Raphael, 31, rue King Ouest, Suite 212, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, 1988.

Marie Carre gave him the name Michael. He stated in the memoirs that he was forced by some irresistible urge to write. He intended to destroy the memoirs so nobody could read it. But our Lord has stated that nothing can remain hidden. "For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known." (Matthew 10: 26). In this case, for the glory of God and for the consolation of the faithful, God wanted the memoirs to be revealed, and nobody could prevent it, including its author. This is another example that it is useless to fight against God Who declared: "See ye that I alone am, there is no other God besides me: I will kill and I will make to live: I will strike, and I will heal, and there is none that can deliver out of my hand." (Deuteronomy 32:39). It only hurts the persecutor as Our Lord told Saul (who later became St. Paul): "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad." (Acts 26:14).

Michael met a French girl whom he named "Raven Hair." They loved each other. He tried to persuade her to support his cause in destroying the Catholic Church. As a devout Catholic, she steadfastly refused to join him. Despite all sophisticated arguments he had used successfully to mislead even the Clergy in the Church, he failed miserably before a seemingly ignorant girl. Her letter to him is a little masterpiece of apologetic theology. Despite her love for him, she was opposing his atheism, defending God and the Church. Yet, she said she would sacrifice her life to save him. She entered the Carmelite Convent to pray to God in his name. Michael writes: "She was there for my sake, she would have her hair cut for my sake, she would pray for me all her life, she would be behind gratings for my sake, never anymore would she have the least lover's joy . . for my sake." If he was saved, it would be due to a great grace gained from her sacrifice and atonement for his sins.

Finally, an example of ambiguity in the Documents of the Second Vatican Council can be seen from the following excerpts from The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium, December 4, 1963, printed in A. Flannery, editor, Vatican Council II, the Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, 1988 Revised Edition, Costello Publishing Company.)

They contain a lot of "yes, but"s:

21. - ... For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be changed with the passage of time, if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become less suitable.

23. In order that sound tradition be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress, a careful investigation -- theological, historical, and pastoral -- should always be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised.

36. (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites. (2) But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives and in some prayers and chants.

37. Even in the liturgy the Church does not wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community. Rather does she respect and foster the qualities and talents of the various races and nations....She sometimes even admits such things into the liturgy itself, provided they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit. (Comment: the good of the whole community becomes an important criterion equal to faith in determining whether the liturgy should be adapted (changed) to local customs! What if something is considered "good for community" but is against the tradition of the Church?)

II. Confession of the Communist Secret Agent

Michael was born in 1917 probably from Russian parents fleeing the Revolution. A Polish doctor and his wife found him wandering along the road at the age of three. The couple were devout Catholics but had no child of their own. They adopted him and loved him as their own. In his confession Michael relates that the Polish couple were very good to him, very generous, and full of affection. When he reached fourteen, his happy life changed. He overheard his parents mentioning that he was not their son. They were worried about obtaining a passport for him to go with them to Rome and Paris. He had been brought up to believe that they were his real mother and father. The revelation of his real status in the family shocked him and caused instant hatred for his parents. He decided to run away from home and met a friend who introduced him to his uncle who was a high-ranking official in the Russian Secret Police.

Michael had completed 6 years of study and by now was 20 years old. He was called to the office of The Uncle who told him: "I am now going to send you to practice a militant and international atheism. You will have to fight all religions, but principally the Catholic, which is better organized. To do so, you will enter a seminary and become a Roman Catholic priest.... to be able to enter a seminary, you will have to return to Poland, reconcile yourself with your adoptive family and present yourself to the bishop."

The Uncle added : "A secret agent has no blood in his veins, no heart, loves no one, not even himself. He is the thing of the Party, which will devour him alive and without warning. Keep this well in mind that, wherever you will be, we will watch you and get rid of you at your first imprudence. It is to be well understood that if you are in danger, even without it being your fault, you must not rely upon us. You will be disavowed... Hatred, except the hatred of God, at Lenin's example, does not enter into our services. I need that you be accepted by a true bishop of your native country, Poland. But, we do not intend to have you pursue your religious studies in that country. No, you will be sent to a country across the Atlantic, but this is confidential and you will simulate surprise when you receive that order. Yes, we are led to fear a European war with that fool who rules Germany. Therefore, it seems wiser to have you study somewhere else, Canada, for example. We have another motive also. It is that European Seminaries are much more strict than those of America."

The Uncle gave further instructions to Michael: "The ten persons who will be directly under your orders will never know you. To reach you, they will have to pass through me. Thus you will never be denounced. We already have in our service numerous priests in all countries where Catholicism is implanted, but you will never know one another. One is a bishop. Maybe you will enter into contact with him, it will depend upon the rank that you reach. We have spies everywhere and particularly old ones who follow the press of the whole world. A compendium will be sent to you regularly. We will easily know when your own ideas have made their way into peoples' minds. See, an idea is good when some idiot writer presents it as one of his own. Nobody is more conceited than a writer. We rely much on such writers and we do not have to train them. They work for us without knowing it or rather without wanting to."

Michael proposed to the Uncle: "As soon as. I entered the seminary, I was supposed to try to discover how to destroy all that was taught to me. But to do so, I should have to study attentively and intelligently, that is without passion, the History of the Church. I would particularly never lose sight of the fact that persecutions only make martyrs of whom Catholics have had reason to say that they are seeds of Christianity. Therefore, no martyrs. I must never forget that all religions are based on fear, the ancestral fear, all religions are born from this fear. Therefore. if you suppress fear, you suppress religions....You must drive it to the head of men, and particularly in the head of Churchmen to search for, at any price, a universal religion into which all churches would be melted together. So that this idea could take form and life, we must inculcate in pious people, especially Roman Catholics, a feeling of guilt concerning the unique truth in which they pretend to live.... I was Catholic, and very Catholic, I mean, very pious and zealous until my fourteenth year, and I believe it to be rather easy to show Catholics that there are other holy persons among the Protestants, the Moslems and the Jews, etc... So that all men could enter it (this Universal Church), it could retain a vague idea of a God more or less Creator, more or less Good, according to times. Moreover this God will be useful only in periods of calamity. Then the ancestral fear will fill these temples, but in other times they will be rather empty."

The Uncle thought it over a good while, then he said to Michael: " I fear that the Catholic clergy will quickly notice the danger and be hostile to your project."

Michael said: "This is what has happened until now. My idea was launched by Non-Catholics and the Catholic Church has always closed its door to such a program. It is precisely why I want to study the way to make it change its mind. I know that this will not be easy, that we will have to work hard at it, during twenty or even fifty years but that we should succeed in the end."

The Uncle asked: " By what means ?"

Michael replied: "By numerous and subtle means. I look at the Catholic Church as if it were a sphere. To destroy it, you must attack it in numerous small points until it loses all resemblance to what it was before. We will have to be very patient. I have many ideas that might seem at first sight to be petty and childish, but I maintain that the entirety of those petty childishnesses will become an invisible weapon of great efficacity."

Eight days later, Michael met the Uncle's chief whom he described as a monster, a brute with a combination of brutality, coarseness, ruse, sadism, and vulgarity. The chief told Michael: "From now on, you are on the list of our active secret agents. You will give orders every week. I rely on your zeal. I readily admit that it will take a long time to destroy all religions from within, nevertheless, it is necessary that the orders which you will give find an echo, notably among writers, journalists a even theologians. It is to be understood that we have a team who watches the religious writings of the whole world and gives its advice on the utility of directives given by such or such an agent. Therefore, do your best to please. I have good hopes, because it seems to me that you have already understood it all by yourself. "

The following are Michael's own words on various issues:

On The Mass

"The professor also taught me a reasonable way to say mass, since in six years I would be obliged to say it. While waiting for a deep modification of the whole ceremony, he never pronounced the words of the Consecration. But so as not to be suspected, he pronounced words almost similar, at least according to the ending of the words. He advised me to do the same. All that made this ceremony look like a sacrifice should, little by little, be suppressed. The whole ceremony should represent only a common meal, as among Protestants. He even assured me that it should never have been otherwise. He also worked at the elaboration of a new Ordinary the Mass and advised me to do the same also, because it appeared to him to be altogether desirable to present to people a large number of diversified masses."

"It would do some good that a prophecy be sent throughout the world that would be the following : 'Some day, you will see married priests and mass said in vernacular tongues.' I remember with joy that I was the first one to say these things in 1938. That same year, I urged women to ask for the priesthood. And I advocated a mass, not parochial, but a family mass that would be said at home, by the father and mother, before each meal. "

On Holy Scripture

"In Rome, I had very interesting conversations with a professor who would be mine, when I would have received the priesthood. He was a member of our network. He was very optimistic. He had specialized in Holy Scripture and was working at a new translation of the Bible in English. The most astounding was that he had chosen a Lutheran pastor as his only collaborator. The said pastor, besides, was no more in accord with his own church which seemed old-fashioned to him."

"This collaboration, of course, remained secret. The aim of these two men was to rid humanity of all the systems which it had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament had given itself through the Bible, and especially the New Testament. Thus, the virginity of Mary, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and His Resurrection, according to them were to be put in parenthesis and finally were to end up in a simple suppression. The dignity of modern man, in their eyes, was worth such a price."

"The modernization of God's Word often allowed to diminish the Church's obstinacy. And that was done in a very natural way. These new translations, besides, facilitated the Biblical dialogues upon which we laid great hopes.... One of my preferred dialogues concerned the Pope, because this personage is really an obstacle to me. When I say 'this personage', I mean also the texts upon which his title is based. Those texts are also as embarrassing for me as they are for the Separated Christians (as they say). I am very grateful to the one who thought that the word 'prevail' has become incomprehensible to the modern man and has replaced it by 'be able'. Instead of 'the gates of Hell will never prevail against it (the Church)', he has written : 'The gates of Hell will never be able to do anything against it.' This makes my meetings Biblical dialogues much easier, at least in French speaking countries. Each one notices very quickly that this prophecy, which pretends that hell can do nothing against the Church, is absolutely false, and every one breathes at ease, because thus withers away this secular belief in a divine protection which, definitely, would always favor the efforts of Catholics (to be understood: never those of Heretics!)."

On the Pope

"About the time I was playing with confession, I was particularly sensitive to one point of doctrine, I mean to say 'the holy virtue of obedience' (as they say.) This obedience especially concerns the Pope. I was turning this problem over and at all its angles, without being able to understand .... I was therefore obliged to ask our services to see to it that the confidence shown to the Pope by Catholics be ridiculed discreetly on every possible occasion. I did not ignore that I was asking them something very difficult. But, all in all, it seemed primordial to me to incite Catholics to criticize the Pope."

"Someone was charged to watch attentively all the Vatican writings, in order to detect even very small details capable of displeasing one category of individuals. The quality of those who criticize the Pope does not matter, the only important thing is that he be criticized. The ideal thing, of course, would be that he displeased everybody, that is, reactionaries as well as modernists."

On the Protestantization of the Church

"It was during those days that I launched on the market (we could almost say) the programme that would allow Catholics to be accepted by Protestants .... Catholics had hoped too much for the return of Protestantism to the fold of the Mother Church. It was time that they should lose their arrogance. Charity made it a duty for them. When charity is at stake, I pretended, laughing up my sleeve, nothing wrong can happen."

"I prophesied with assurance, so that this would be repeated in the same tones, the suppression of Latin, of priestly ornaments, of statues and images, of candles and prie-dieu (so that they could kneel no more) .... And I also started a very active campaign for the suppression of the Sign of the Cross."

"I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers. And came to the following prophecy: Baptism, for the modern man has become ridiculously magical. Whether given by immersion or not Baptism must be abandoned in favor of an Adult Religion."

"Moreover, all that is permitted among Protestants, even if only in one sect, must be authorized among Catholics, that is the remarriage of divorcees, polygamy, contraception and euthanasia."

On the Eucharist

Michael encouraged Protestants to go to Catholic Mass and receive Holy Communion. This is because: "When Catholics will see Protestants receive Communion at their masses, without having been converted, they will [no?] longer have confidence in their antique 'Real Presence.' It will be explained to them that this Presence only exists in so far as it is believed. Thus they will feel themselves to be creators of all their religion and the most intelligent all them will know how to draw the required conclusions."

"To weaken more the notion of 'Real Presence' of Christ, all decorum will have to be set aside. No more costly embroidered vestments, no more music called sacred, especially no more Gregorian chant, but a music in jazz style, no more sign of the Cross, no more genuflections, but only dignified stern attitudes .... Moreover the faithful will have to break themselves the habit of kneeling, and this will be absolutely forbidden when receiving Communion .... Very soon, the Host will be laid in the hand in order that all notion of the Sacred be erased."

"In order to destroy all sacredness in the cult, the priest will be invited to say the whole Mass in vernacular and especially to recite the words of the Consecration as a narration, which they are in reality. He must not, above all, pronounce the following words: 'This is my Body, this is my Blood,' as if he really took the place of Christ Who pronounced them."

"Let everyone feel that the priest is reading a narration. Furthermore, there must never be question of a Sacrifice, that is, a Mass-Sacrifice, a non-bloody renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross. No Protestant accepts this formula. Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity."

On Marian Cult and Cult of The Saints

"At that time, I showed great energy to destroy the Marian cult. I insisted greatly upon the grief that Catholics and Orthodoxes caused to Protestants by keeping up their numerous devotions to the Virgin Mary. I pointed out that the dear separated brethren were more logical and wiser. This human creature about whom we know almost nothing becomes, in our Church, in some way, more powerful than God (or, at least, more gentle ).... I stressed upon the fact that many Protestants believe that Mary had other children after Jesus... Human oddness has no limit. All this strengthens my conviction, that to deny the virginity of Mary is the safest way to transform Christians into disciples of a man who would not at all be God. Who does not see how useful it is to kill Jesus of Nazareth before killing God?"

"I therefore advocated the suppression of the Rosary and of the numerous feast days reserved to Mary... As for all other things, it will be necessary to make a those who keep on reciting the Rosary feel guilty."

"Afterwards, to bluntly suppress the cult of the Saints. The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints... Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy... Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. AIl we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached. "

"Such is the compendium of the orders which I sent throughout the world."

On the Sacraments

"Afterwards, come the Seven Sacraments, which are all to be revised, all the more so that Protestants only have two. All Christians, of all denominations, have kept Baptism, but, for my part, it is the Sacrament that I would like to see disappear first. This seems relatively easy. It is too childish a Sacrament. Almost as childish as the Sign of the Cross and Holy Water."

"Of course, the Sacrament of Confirmation, which pretends to give the Holy Spirit and can be administered only by a bishop, must be suppressed with energy. This attitude will allow to denounce the dogma of the Holy Trinity as offensive to Jews and Moslems, as well as to certain new Protestant Sects."

"As for the Sacrament called Penance, it would be replaced by a community ceremony, which will only be an examination of conscience directed by a well trained priest, all of which would be followed by a general absolution, as in some Protestant Churches."

"As for the Sacrament of Extreme-Unction, we will have to find another word for it.... I would willingly choose the expression 'Sacrament of the Sick,' and to avoid the idea of Eternal Life, it would be allowed to offer this Sacrament, even in case of a light illness."

"As to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which confers the power to exercise clerical functions, we will evidently have to keep it. In our Universal Church we will need priests who will be teachers of some Socialist doctrine.... And, of course, marriage will not be refused to the priests who ask for it, not any more than the Sacrament of Holy Orders will be refused to women."

"No, civil marriage only would be allowed. Thus, this Church, basely authoritative, could not forbid any more divorce and the remarriage of divorcees.... I know well that Jesus of Nazareth has spoken in opposition to this opinion. But I have already said elsewhere that we must know what to choose in his teachings that is suitable to modern man."

On the Universal Church

"First, to replace the word 'Catholic' by 'Universal', which means the same thing. But it is very important that word 'Catholic' should not hurt Protestant ears and would not incite the faithful of the Roman Rite to believe themselves Super-Christians .... It is very important that Christians become conscious of the scandal that is caused by the division of the Church. For, there are three kinds of Christianities: the Catholic, many Orthodox and some three hundred Protestant Sects."

"To emphasize the last prayer of Jesus of Nazareth, prayer that was never heard : 'Be one as my Father and I are One.' To cultivate a growing remorse particularly, among Catholics."

"To stress that Catholics are responsible for the division among Christians, because, by their refusal to compromise, they caused schisms and heresies. To come to a point that every Catholic will feel so guilty that he will wish to atone at any price. To suggest to him that he must himself endeavor to find all the means capable of bringing Catholics closer to Protestants (and also to others) without harming the Credo. To keep only the Credo. And again . . . attention. The Credo must undergo a very slight modification. The Catholics say: 'I believe in the Catholic Church.' The Protestants say: 'I believe in the Universal Church.' It is the same thing. The word Catholic means: Universal."

"Always drive minds towards a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the mentalities. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shall melt together. To bring out that the good will of man, his sincerity, his dignity are worth more than a God always invisible. To show that the luxury and art found in Catholic and Orthodox Churches are intensely disliked by Protestants, Jews and Moslems. To suggest that this useless show must be suppressed for a greater welfare. To excite an iconoclastic zeal. Youngsters must destroy all this hodgepodge : statues, pictures, reliquaries, priestly ornaments, organs, candles and votive lamps, stained glasses and Cathedrals, etc . . . etc..."

OTHER RELATED LINKS:-

05 - AA-1025 - Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle (http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/communist_spy.htm)

06 - The Anti-Priests: Communism in the Church (http://www.trosch.org/bks/commprie.htm)

07 - Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church (http://www.inatoday.com/20030728.htm)

08 - The Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church (http://www.trosch.org/msn/communist.html)

09 - The Greatest Conspiracy: On the Communist infiltration of the Jesuits (http://www.christianorder.com/editorials/editorials_2000/editorials_nov00.html)

10 - Evidence for the Real Third Secret: Communist Agents Have Infiltrated into the Catholic Hierarchy to Destroy from Within (http://www.tldm.org/news2/infiltrators.htm)

11 - The Devil's Final Battle - On The Masonic Alliance with Communism (http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/ch5.htm)

12 - Is the Pope a Catholic? (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1551)

[Edward Henderson]

Thank you Andrew and Father Raphael for sticking to the point of things. As for those who are, once again, smashing the Moscow Patriarchate, you have chosen to ignore all the good they are doing in Russia. I have been coming to Russia, every year since 1998, I have lived here from 2000-2002, and from August 2004 to the present. Orthodoxy's place in Russian society is being restored. Now, we see two Russias; one being post-soviet, new Russia, which is dominated by corrupt thugs. It is a culture of empty, pleasure-seeking, selfishness. This is the Russia that draws the World's attention. The other Russia is Holy Rus', the culture of Russian Orthodox Christianity. These are those good, pious, God-loving, Church-going Russians who put most other Orthodox Christians to shame. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the number of dioceses, seminaries, churches, and monasteries that have been restored, reopened, or re-established is astounding. In Moscow, most of the parishes hold services daily. On Sundays, Churches are not just filled, they are over-crowded. This is growth is influencing Russian society. Now in the Russian state schools, "The Basics of Orthodox Culture", is a course that has become part of the curriculum. I have seen their text books and it does not focus of Slavic nationalisms, but on the basic beliefs, moral code, history, and practices of the Orthodox Church. If the Moscow Patriarchate's sole purpose were money and power, they would have to adopt a more Anglican/Evangelical (Swedish/Danish) Lutheran approach to faith and morality in order to attract more wealthy new Russians.
Secondly, criticizing Russia for having the FSB or even the Soviet Union for the KGB is hypocritical. All countries have security and intelligence agencies. America now has the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, NIS, and probably others we don't know about. Britain has MI5 and MI6. It is also a fact that there have been clergy in the Russian Church Abroad, even a bishop (Bishop Nikon) who were CIA agents. Now, I am no fan of the KGB. However, it is totally pig-headed to discredit Russia or the Moscow Patriarchate on the basis that they have an agency that handles security and intelligence.
The point is, is that Orthodoxy is alive in Russia and in the Moscow Patriarchate. This is the canonical Church of Russia. Yes, there are corrupt members but that is the result of sin. Sin has corrupted me! So, until you can say that you have no sin in your life, you are hypocritical to call the Moscow Patriarchate corrupt. If that offends some, so be it. The gloves are off!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Herman asked


"1. If it is STILL "controlled" by the KGB, how would they be expected to "repent" until they are no longer "controlled"?

On one level this is what we see on the individual level even within our own parishes. Somebody committed a sin that was very serious & that affected everybody in the parish. The person then shows some level of repentance. Some think this was enough, another thinks it was not enough & that it was not genuine. I think you can already see this in the discussion above- which is very representative of the larger discussion going on within the Church.

As we can see however some argue that the taint of compromise has not only not been repented of deeply enough (ie there has been no fundamental change in the relationship of Church to government in Russia); they also argue that the the MP is permanently tainted by its past history. By this they mean the way in which its hierarchy was approved by the communist authorities & then the relationship which this hierarchy had with the communist authorities after this. This, such people claim, means that the very foundation (or founding) of the MP was uncanonical along with its existence after this point. From such a perspective any good that the MP may have done during this period is outweighed by their being uncanonical. At its most extreme some claim that the MP due to its close relationship with the communist authorities became tainted by the same spirit of anti-Christ as the communists. One such group dedicated to not accepting reconciliation refers to it as 'genetic sin' passed on from generation to generation. Although those who hold to these two perspectives rarely openly say it (maybe because they hardly recognise it themselves), the only solution possible is not just repentance but actually wiping the whole slate clean, retiring the hierarchy, and creating a whole new hierarchy approved of and maybe even consecrated by the group -at least in their own eyes- not compromised. One could well ask if the logical end point of this is that there actually would be no independent hierarchy or even Church of Russia anymore but rather the 'non-compromisers' (whether within or out of Russia) would become the actual Mother Church and the former compromisers the daughter church. The last scenario although not stated openly is suggested in the statements of those who who will never accept reconciliation except in its most extreme version.

Some say that there has been enough repentance & others that there has not been enough. While the point of repentance is important though it can lead to an impasse if nothing else is talked about. After all, as pointed out above, accepting someone else's repentance is not only a matter of being charitable, it is also a matter of feeling assured the same harm to the rest of the flock from the sinner may not occur again. This however is a matter of discernment and at its most extreme can lead to a never ending argument of whether to accept this repentance or not & of whether real change has occured or not - a total impasse.

This is why it is crucial to link the discussion (or debate or argument) about repentance to whether what we are talking about actually is a matter of putting someone outside of the Church or not. Granted that there was compromise within the MP does this really mean that its foundation was uncanonical in the sense that the whole Church is no longer canonically legitimate? This is extremely questionable as this makes the mistake of confusing something which may have been uncanonical- the way some hierarchy were chosen- with the canonical legitimacy of the whole Church or even of grace itself. As yesterday's post tried to point out this is a great misunderstanding of the actual meaning of the canons and their place in the life the Church. In a word there is a jump made here from the moral sin of some members of the Church to doubting the grace of the whole Church. Something which certainly is not based on a true Orthodox way of seeing the Church.

There is a Christian impulse to react to and accuse sin. Our Lord though warns us of how carefully we must balance this with self-restraint, patience & sobriety. Without this our witness about sin gradually shifts to something destructive for it becomes based not on virtue but rather on self-will. At this point the whole impulse to continually accuse others and find new sins becomes virtually uncontrollable for the self-will behind this has become addictive. By now every alarm bell should be going off that this is not how Christ would have us deal with sin. The result of this is no cleansing of the Church or of society at all- rather it is a gradual slide into something quite dangerous & not at all of the Church of Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fabio Lins]

Andrew,
I see your point. No human-made or even hell-inspired organization will ever be able to affect the Church. But it can and have already affected a jurisdiction. Rome itself fell off
Orthodoxy. I'm not saying that is the case of Moscow. I really don't know. But I do think this is no reason to act as if the MP, after the fall of USSR had automatically reverted to a pre-Communist state of things where any state-related problem was normal.

Fr. Raphael above talked beautifully about repentence. I do agree. But repentence *needs* the open recognition that a mistake was made. Has it ever happened in Russia? Considering Mr. Putin's recent remarks about the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century" makes it clear that the answer is a resounding "no".

Some more of an insider's perspective:

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident who spent twelve years in Soviet prisons, labor camps and psychiatric hospitals for his fight for freedom, and whose works include To Build a Castle and Judgement in Moscow.

Q: Vladimir, and what is it exactly that is, as you say, "going on in Russia"?

Bukovsky: Contrary to popular belief in the West, it is not on the way to democracy and a market economy. The last presidential elections show you what kind of democracy this country has established for itself, when the voters had a choice between a Communist leader and a KGB colonel. That is elections Russian-style.

Indeed, the KGB has won. After ten years of some hesitant, half-hearted attempts at reform, the power was handed back to them, once again, and they were very quick to re-establish their authority throughout the country, as well as to reinstate the old symbols of the Soviet Union - the national anthem and the Red flag in the Army. The last outlets of independent media were closed down one by one. We did not have political prisoners for ten years; we have them now. Several people are already imprisoned for speaking out against the war in Chechnya, or some abuses of the military powers over there, or about the pollution by the military nuclear waste.
(...)
Since the Soviet system was not eradicated, nor even conclusively defeated, lots of old features (and structures) remained practically intact. Above all, most people's attitude to the world remains the same, as most of them did not perceive the demise of the old regime as natural or inevitable. These feelings are running strongest among the military, the FSB (former KGB), the state bureaucracy in general. As a result, Russia today is a schizophrenic state, with one foot in the past, another is in the air, meant to be planted in the future (but never is). Add up to that a "new feature" - criminalization of the society in general, and of power structures in particular (of which the FSB is practically in control of organized crime).
(...)
For the sake of illustration, just imagine that in 1955 (ten years after the WW 2 was officially finished), a former Gestapo officer was elected as a Chancellor of Germany and publicly announced that he was proud of his past. Or that former Nazi collaborators organized mass demonstrations across Europe in defense of war criminals. Would we consider the outcome of the WW 2 as a victory for Western democracy? Of course not.

Why did it not happen? Because the Nazi were defeated, removed from power, put on trial in Nuremberg, while German society was subjected to a de-nazification process. Nothing of the sort took place after the Cold War.
-----

In my opinion, what we see today in Russia is nothing but a re-edition of Lenin's 1920s NPE, a period of joyride with "democracy and capitalism" intended only for reboosting the regime. The Russian jurisdiction of the Church *is* in risk.

As Bukovsky said *none* of the old structures were removed. That includes, of course, the structures made to influence the Russian jurisdiction. Moscow cannot be so proud of its Christian history as to think it is immune to what happened to Rome. Where is the *proof* of repentence, as mentioned by Bukovsky? Where are the war criminals, the trials of crimes against human rights, the infiltrators? Repentence is *always* preceeded by *confession*. And there has been none. Repentence is not identified by remarks that the end of hedious crimes were a loss to a whole age.

People often talk about the growth of the Church as the other face of present Russia. But, because it is not the leading face, it is fragile and may and will be over when the true leaders, pretty much the mentioned "old boys club" so decide.

The Russian intelligence service cannot be compared with the CIA first because of its sheer size. It employs much more people. Second, and most importantly, it is far older and *much* more experienced and thus more dangerous. Thirdly, its involvement with the mafia is far more compromising than any CIA illegal operation.

[Kosmas Damianides]

Are you people for real? wake up!! KGB, mafia and Communist conspiracies? As long as they keep away from our Church we are fine thank you.

Someone should produce a movie sounds very entertaing in a secular way.

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gif

[Fabio Lins]

A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group of insiders with specific objectives, Kosmas. What I brought up is simply geopolitical strategies perspectives. It's not secret and much less specific. To treat *all* issues that deal with the KGB and the Russian government as if it were conspiracies only and they had no reality is what stereotypes the question.

All governments do that, all of them would get hold of religion if they could. It so happens that Russia has the best tools for that and a Patriarchate is a reasonably centralized institution that makes it easier to influence than, say, American hundreds of protestant/evangelical denominations.

In what regards these intelligence/geopolitical matters it is the same that it is with demons according to C.S. Lewis: there is a very great danger in giving too much attention to it. But treating it as non-existant is equally lethal.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fabio wrote:


A conspiracy is a secret plan by a group of insiders with specific objectives, Kosmas. What I brought up is simply geopolitical strategies perspectives. It's not secret and much less specific. To treat *all* issues that deal with the KGB and the Russian government as if it were conspiracies only and they had no reality is what stereotypes the question.

All governments do that, all of them would get hold of religion if they could. It so happens that Russia has the best tools for that and a Patriarchate is a reasonably centralized institution that makes it easier to influence than, say, American hundreds of protestant/evangelical denominations.

In what regards these intelligence/geopolitical matters it is the same that it is with demons according to C.S. Lewis: there is a very great danger in giving too much attention to it. But treating it as non-existant is equally lethal.

I am completely in agreement that when it comes to geopolitical issues and how this affects the Church we must have a balanced and sober approach. On the one hand Christ tells us the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church; but on the other He says that we are also in the world while not of it. So we do have to deal with the world and its various afflictionns. In this sense it may be of some help to try to know what the future holds considering the present situation. I would say however that the Church is extremely cautious about using this kind of approach which so easily leads to false speculation & fear of our own inner spectres. Hopefully there is still a place for simplicity and innocent trust and taking Christ's words as being literally true- "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church."

Trying to base ourselves on the Holy Fathers it seems safe to say that geopolitics and arguments over history are in the realm of what they would call 'opinion'. By its very nature it is unstable because it is often subject to our own passions and speculations. Not to say that it is useless but crucially I think we fall into a serious mistake when we think or act as if this is how the Church is guided. A fundamental mistake often made is thinking & explaining how such and such a sin will lead to the destruction of the Church. This leads ourselves & others on many false and potentially very dangerous spiritual paths.
To see where the Church is or isn't we must convert so that we see with the eyes of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fabio worte:


Fr. Raphael above talked ... about repentence. I do agree. But repentence *needs* the open recognition that a mistake was made. Has it ever happened in Russia? Considering Mr. Putin's recent remarks about the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century" makes it clear that the answer is a resounding "no".

Yes- Russia still suffers from the Soviet period. This also affects the Church to one degree or another. But to what degree? It is one thing to show how the Church still suffers from the Soviet period. It is quite another to make the claim or to imply that social/political problems in Russian society undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the Church.
Seeing through the eyes of the Church is to partake & focus on the Life which Christ offers through the Church rather than the sin & death of the world. To define the Church by the sin of individual members (even Patriarchs) is to base the Church on the foundations of the world. In a way it is like saying that the more the world is worldly the less the Church is the Church- now that's really lethal.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

"AA-1025. Memoirs of a Communist injured in an auto accident in France; he died in the hospital a few hours later. The nurse who attended him kept his journals, read them and published them as AA-1025. He had become a Catholic priest to subvert the Church from within. Describes his methods & plans. Says there were many more like him. Very enlightening! "

Quite interesting, but how do we know this is not fiction? How do we know this was not written as an attack against the Orthodox Church.

The one true witness is dead remember. We don't know if the memoirs are fantasy or actual fact. Maybe this priest was writing a fiction novel.

We already know the Jesuits will do anything for the "greater" glory of God.
"Whatever you do, do it for the greater glory of God." The Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) have taken this as their motto. The four Latin words are usually expressed with their initials, AMDG and it would be good if they became as well know as those other four letters today, WWJD. "Ad Majorem Dei, Gloriam." For the greater glory of God.

taken from:

http://www2.bc.edu/~nolanj/archives/hom021300.html (http://www2.bc.edu/%7Enolanj/archives/hom021300.html)

[Ken McRae]

Kosmas originally posted:-

>> "Maybe this priest was writing a fiction novel. We already know the Jesuits will do anything for the "greater" glory of God.

"Whatever you do, do it for the greater glory of God." The Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) have taken this as their motto. The four Latin words are usually expressed with their initials, AMDG and it would be good if they became as well know as those other four letters today, WWJD. "Ad Majorem Dei, Gloriam." For the greater glory of God. [ ... taken from: http://www2.bc.edu/~nolanj/archives/hom021300.html ]"<<

Dear Kosmas,

Maybe its true, maybe not. I'll give you that much. But what if it's true? I have not done my due diligence to investigate it beyond the little I've posted. That the priesthood has its "formalists", whether Catholic or Orthodox, is a known fact. The book entitled, Father Gerasim of New Valaam, clearly attests to this, on pages 22 and 24. Quote:

1 - "Father Gerasim stood there dumbfounded, hardly able to believe his ears. It was as if, he said later, someone had just dumped a bucket of ice water over him. (i.e. It gave him 'the chills'.) There before him was the Bishop
who had given him apostolic succession, had made him a priest by the laying on of hands; and that Bishop was just treating the Church like a form, with no content." (p. 22)

2 - "To his disappointment, Fr. Gerasim found that other clergy with whom he had come into contact were also spiritually bankrupt, viewing their missionary work as part of an existing cultural establishment." (p. 24)

And it is certainly not beyond a formalist to do such a thing as you suggest. However, your remarks about the Jesuits are completely unfounded, I feel. The Jesuit "motto", if it truly expresses the spirit of that brotherhood is, if anything, to its great credit. We would do well to have such a "motto" ourselves!!

I very much doubt, though, that any "formalist", whether he be an Orthodox bishop or a Catholic Jesuit, does anything for the greater glory of God, and least of all write "fictional" novels of the kind you suggest. As I say, I have never really investigated the story, but if you've read what I've posted, there were several eye-witnesses, "allegedly", and not just the one, as you state. Several anomalies come to mind, though, such as why Miss Bella never produced the names of 'the four cardinals' which she had dealings with, (to name just one,) when she was a 'card-carrying red-atheist'.

Anyway, I posted that information purely for information's sake, as I thought a few members here might have a little interest in it. Forgive me if you found it offensive. May the peace of Christ be with you.

humbly,
Theophilus

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

1 - "Father Gerasim stood there dumbfounded, hardly able to believe his ears. It was as if, he said later, someone had just dumped a bucket of ice water over him. (i.e. It gave him 'the chills'.) There before him was the Bishop who had given him apostolic succession, had made him a priest by the laying on of hands; and that Bishop was just treating the Church like a form, with no content." (p. 22)

2 - "To his disappointment, Fr. Gerasim found that other clergy with whom he had come into contact were also spiritually bankrupt, viewing their missionary work as part of an existing cultural establishment." (p. 24)

Such dramatic words were written by a certain Orthodox cleric who has been on the fringes of the Church for many years. Even when his name did not appear on the front cover of the books published by him (usually it did not) these books were always heavily vetted by him.

In these books the same same scenario is played out over & over- callous hierarchs riding rough shod over the innocent desire of some lone priests or monks who are only trying to lead an authentic Orthodox life. Much of this is the cleric's own version of what originally got him into trouble played out through other people in a mostly imaginary way. Anyone familiar with any of the people described in these books knows their reaction to whatever suffering they underwent was not like that.

A good example of this is the large book on Fr Seraphim Rose which was completely re-done due to how the original distorts not only past events and motives- a careful reading page by page (you can only do this for about 50 or so pages before it gets too tiring) shows how the descriptions of many of the characters & how they speak have been made more sober in the new edition. This especially affects the description of Fr Seraphim. In the first edition of the book an altercation with his hierarch becomes a life altering experience that explains much of what happens later. In the revised edition however we see that in reality this incident was no more than a temporary trial for Fr Seraphim and that he & his hierarch reconciled long before Fr Seraphim's repose- which the first edition completely neglects to mention. In all of this as with the descriptions of others such as Fr Gerasim one strongly suspects that a certain amount of the actual character of the person written about is lost and substituted with the writer's own preoccupations about his own predicament.

I don't like referring to these things in an open forum like this. But when people put these things into published books which others will innocently read and be affected by for many years to come then a word of warning is due. For not only are many of the accusations found in these books false (such things have no place in books published by a monastery anyway) they also leave one with a sinful & distorted picture that those who may have suffered at the hands of others harboured resentment in reaction to this. And to present such as if it was justified can only subtly lead others into thinking that similiar reactions to trial or persecution at the hands of others is also alright. Which it most certainly isn't. In any case thanks be to God the monastery itself has long ago set out on a seperate and safe track and the new books they publish are not like this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Edward Henderson]

I still think people are taking quotations out of context. Putin did say that the collapse of the USSR was a "geopolitical catastrophe", but this is not a salute to Marxism. If we look at the reforms of Gorbachev in the 1980's, we find that personal freedoms were being granted. Active persecution against the Orthodox Church ceased. There was also a recognition of past Soviet attrocities. It was also very clear that the Russian experiment with Marxism was failing. Gorbachev's reforms including giving more autonomy to the individual Soviet republics and allowing private enterprise at the local level. Evidently, this has been what the Chinese are doing. They realize that they will never build communism so they are slowly adjusting to a market economy. No matter how we may feel about Marxist economic theory, one cannot expect positive results when attempting to immediately switch a Marxist style economy to a free market one. With the fall of the USSR in 1991, this is exactly what happened. On the advise of American economists, President Yeltsin introduced 'shock therapy' and this decimated the Russian economy. Countless elderly lost their pensions and poverty became widespread, except for a limited few, the oligarchs. So, realistically, the collapse of the USSR was a geopolitical catastrophe. Perhaps if they had followed a slower, gradual transition, as was Gorbachev's intention, Russia would not have faced the political, social, and economic chaos of the early and mid 1990's.
I am do not believe or support Marx's economic or social theories. However, I do not see Laissez-faire, Adam Smith style capitalism, nor American cultural imperalism, nor globalization, nor the current manifestation of "free trade" as any more "Christian". We cannot criticise President Putin for being a former KGB agent and neglect the fact that President Bush, Sr. was once head of the CIA. We cannot talk of Jewish mafias in Russia and ignore the exploitative deeds of multinational American corporations. We cannot critize the Moscow Patriarchate for having KGB clergy, when ROCOR have had clergy in the American CIA. We cannot sit comfortably and judge the Russian believers who have suffered so much, but still have great love for Christ and His Church. Will your parish in your comfortable town or city being holding Vespers this evening or Liturgy tommorow? Will you be there? I can tell you that here in Moscow, most Churches will be having these services and people will be there. So, you can go on with your conspiracy theories, but these so-called "corrupt", "Chekists in riassas", will be in Church praying for us! Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!

[Owen Jones]

I don't think anyone begrudges church building and church attendance in Moscow and Russia generally being on the rise. The issue was raised by someone concerned about finding the One True Church, who seemed to be somewhat despairing of the jurisdictional disputes between canonical and non-canonical jurisdictions, and in the case of ROCOR in particular, there are historical reasons for this, which, when examined, provide us with some guidance. Unfortunately, some of those historical reasons are still with us and it will take a long time to sort it out. Just as it will likely take a hundred years for Russia to recover from Soviet rule. But to then become defensive about the Russian situation, and to claim a kind of moral equivalence theory, I think goes too far. I have a soft spot in my heart for Russia and have been there twice since the fall of the Soviet system, but it seems to me that one of the typical problems in Russian history is to blame others for their problems that they have caused. Until Russians take responsibility for their own reality, shall we say, and until the Church takes responsibility for its reality, these kinds of problems are going to persist.

By the way, the ROCOR priest I know who did work for the CIA -- do you know what work he did for the CIA? He smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union! Bishops and priests in Russia who worked for the KGB beat and killed innocent people. And it's disturbing that no one has ever been held accountable.

There is a Russian film that I have been searching for called Repentence in which a local thuggish mayor dies and after his death everyone goes on living as usual without dealing with their past, and some holy fool keeps digging up the body. I guess I am more of a body digger upper than one who says, let him stay buried.

[Elena V.]

If anyone would like to see the real damage that communism has inflicted on the Orthodox Church get informed about the creation of the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church, how still it struggles to be recognised because it was created by the communists of Yugoslavia and how it still has some bishops who were in the secret services of the UDBA (something like the KGB in Russia). This Church is uncanonical (not non-canonical because it has broken so many canons, participated in the demolition of an orthodox church, hold such ethnophiletistic positions that are on the verge of heresis, that makes one wonder if it is orthodox at all) and is a real examle for the continual existence of communisam in former communist and socialist societies.

[Fabio Lins]

Fr. Raphael.
The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, not against any jurisdiction in particular. As I said, I don´t believe Moscow has fallen or ever will. But it has an issue that she has not yet faced. It is as simple as that. Innocent and devoted belief must be given to all Scripture and Tradition. Including to Matthew 10:16:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

So yes, this kind of suspicion is very "serpent-like" and dangerous as it is - as I said, giving too much thought to it is harmful. But not giving any thought at all or simply disconsidering the very real fact that Russia wanted, wants and has the means to influence the Church is simply going against Scripture. All jurisdictions have problems alright, but these problems compromise them differently. Russia´s problem is bigger than any other for Orthodoxy as a whole because of Moscow´s influence in the Church.

Now, Edward, my church will not hold Vespers and in fact its only services consist of Liturgy on Wednesdays and Sundays. That is because it is located in a slum in Rio de Janeiro, a place where official Law does not go. My priest has already had to deal with a robber who, guns in hand, stormed into the Church to take all the money they had. do you know what happpened next? The leader of the drugdealers of the hill himself (did u know that "law" in Rio´s hills is "enforced" by murderous drugdealers?) called for a conversation with the priest (who by the way is over 60) where the life of the robber was discussed; the drug-traffic does not allow such "minor" crimes to occur in "their" area not to attract the police and their routine in these cases is what they call "the microwave": they catch the person, put him inside a column of old tires, put gas on them and then put fire. Fortunately, they agreed that the robber would simply give back the money and not be allowed to live or ever go back to that slum. A slum, in case you do not know, is town inside the city made of brick or wood cabins, some of which have open sewers going inside their only room which is bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. As you can imagine the community there is less than poor, they are miserable. The church follows line and if it has icons and even many sacred objects for the altar it is because they remain from better days when the priest served elsewhere and because of his dedication. If what this community gathers every Sunday amounts to 30 dollars it is a day of particular blessing. This in Rio de Janeiro which had 2 times more violent deaths in "peace" time in 2003 than Iraq during the war considering both sides. So much then for my "parish in my comfortable town".

Fabio Lins

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fabio,

I haven't been following the discussion on this thread, but just read your last post. I'm astonished. Your priest must have more guts (and more faith) in his 60-year-old frame than I can even imagine, talking to those drug-dealers for the thief's life like that!

ICXC
Byron

[Edward Henderson]

First of all, I do feel for your situation Fabio and the "comfortable town" reference certainly does not apply to you. However, the majority of members are either in North America, Britain, or Australia and do live in "comfortable towns". What irks me is this constant picking on the Moscow Patriarchate when they have done so much in the last 14 years to restore Orthodoxy in Russia. Who are we to judge them? I have studied Russian history and I can point out plenty of examples of failures and sins on the part of Russian hierarchs and synods throughout history. But what is the point? One reads this who is struggling and could conclude that he or she is wasting their time living as an Orthodox Christian if those at the highest levels are so corrupt and have been throughout the centuries. We are encouraged to read the lives of the saints to be encourage in our struggle. Many of these saints were persecuted by their bishops or brother clergy or even spiritual children. So, we could focus on the failure of the Russian Church to condemn the terror of Ivan the Terrible or resist the ecclesiastical reforms of Peter the Great or how its theological schools at one time used Summa Theologica as its chief theology book. We could focus on the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and the fact that during the Soviet period, MP clerics were often KGB agents just as clergy during the Imperial period were expected to break the seal of confession if one confessed to being part of any plots against the Empire or Government authorities.
Again, does such study encourage one to struggle in their Orthodox faith? I do not think so, it gives us excuses and encourages us to judge. So, even now, we can focus on the negative side of church life or we can look at what is right and good in the modern Church.
I was once interested in Church politics and it destroyed my spiritual life. I do not claim to be an expert or good example. Unfortunately, with this crude, impersonal, technical form of communication, all our emotions are on edge. Going into any discussion room is like being in a room full high strung poodles.
The point is that there are so many positive and wonderful things happening in the Russian Church today. I live in Russia and know the problems that exist here but, for my own sanity and so that I can have a true spiritual life, I would rather focus on what is right and good than be judgemental and obsessed with the sins of the past.

[Andrew Williams]

Thank you Edward. Amen to that!

[Owen Jones]

The only reason this came up was that a person was concerned about the jurisdictional conflict, for which there are understandable historical reasons. It was not to pick on the Church in Russia, only to explain why there were more than one jurisdictions claiming to represent Russia. If I sound too much like a Donatist on the subject, forgive me.

[Fabio Lins]

Edward,

I think one of the problems is that people deal with this issue as it was merely about is the Patriarche guilty or not? I don't know and that is the smallest of the problems. Another problem is that people tend to treat the Russian Soviet and post-Soviet regime as "just another" government that mendles in religious affairs. It is not. It never war, never will be. Not thinking about it may bring peace, but not truth. CIA is child in adult's playground when compared to Russia's centuries old police regimes. If that did not affect the local jurisdiction that much it was because the governments in control of such structures was not anti-Christian. The Soviet regime was. And because the ruling elite has never changed - as seen in the articles I linked above - there is no reason they changed their core attitude about this. Lots of people say we should not be harsh on Moscow because we must forgive and all. But that does not seem to be what Jesus recommended:
---
Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
---
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
---

Forgiveness assumes repent. There is no sign whatsoever that the *government* (the MP itself is of less importance in this) of Russia has ever repented from USSR. There is little reason, if any, then to believe that the government would act in a different way towards the Church. Even their "tolerance" can only be viewed as something conjunctoral. Russia, today, is like a Germany where Gestapo officials still had offices and no war-trials had ever happened. To think that Nazis wouls stop being Nazis in 15 years "just because" they lost the war is the same as to believe that Church-hating Soviet communists would stop being Church-hating Soviet communists in 15 years "just because" they lost the war.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> For my two cents, I agree. The demonic Soviets, specifically Stalin destroyed Christ The Savior cathedral in Moscow. But the present, non-Soviet rulers have recently rebuilt that magnificent edifice. And it is beautiful. If I am not mistaken, I think that all credit is due to those presently ruling Russia for this reconstruction. Vasilis

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> If anyone is interested or has any doubt how evil Islam truly is, I suggest you read "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam From Jihad to Dhimmitude" by Bat Ye`or and or read also "The Blight of Asia" by George Horton. The Blight of Asia can be down-loaded FREE of charge from the URL sight: http://www.ellopos.net/politics/turkey-blight/download.asp There really is no such thing as "radical Islam". Islam is radical in and of itself. Vasilis

[Edward Henderson]

Apparently some of us need to brush up on our Greek because the word "repent" means "to change". Look at Russia today, I am the first to admit that there are many problems; socially, politically, economically, etc., but it is not the Soviet Union. First of all, the current government does not persecute the Orthodox Church. In fact the attitude towards Orthodoxy has become rather positive, even the Communists tote a pro-Orthodox line. Although, I do admit this is more out of nationalism than faith. Now for this quote:
"There is little reason, if any, then to believe that the government would act in a different way towards the Church. Even their 'tolerance' can only be viewed as something conjunctoral."

During the Gorbachev era, one could say the government was more tolerant towards the Church, being. Today, there is actually encouragement. One of the courses taught in the state schools is "Basics of Orthodox Culture", which are really Orthodox catechetical courses and quite good ones. This indicates a policy greater than just tolerance.
Again, I am not pretending that there are no problems in Russia and with the current governing authorities. There is a simple, universal principal that power corrupts man. However, to think that Russia is still an atheistic, Marxist state is simply incorrect. If you wish to know my views on Russia's problems, I will be happy to share them with anyone privately but this is not the place to do it. My email is geh8988@gmail.com

[Fabio Lins]

Edward,
Have you ever haerd of Lenin's NPE? Have you ever heard about "one step backward, two steps forward"? Would you say that a Gestapo officials governed Germany was one that Nazism had been defeated?

It's not Greek that must be brushed up, but common sense. The "changes" are supperficial. What's the point of Orthodoxy being taught in school if the ones who hold power and the army and the weapons are still her enemies'? Even a hundred Orthodox universities can be put down by a couple of tanks after they served their purpose of gaining the confidence/money of the rest of the world for the ruling elite.
The elite, the "party", the ones who hold the controls are *still* the same people who once we knew by Soviets and KGB. Can one really be so overconfident as to accept a mere name-change with minor cosmetic adaptations, irrelevant for power matters, as "repent"? Simon, the magician, even got baptized only to get the status people gave to the apostles. That is precisely what KGB-Soviet-elite is doing now. But the apostles did send demons aways and did not suffer their company. Where are the "expelled demons" of this "conversion"? There has never been any and that's because there has never been a real change in essence.
So they do not call themselves Soviets anymore? So what? Give me a honest answer to this one: if you had a kinder garten child molested by a teacher called "Steve", and you complained to the authorities with sufficient video-taped proofs, and then when you went back there a moth aftewards you found out that the same person was there, would you accept their calls for "forgiveness" when they said "But he is not Steve anymore, his name is John now, and look, now he helps children cross the street!" Of course not. Why would *anyone* accept that? But that is what we are called to accept about Russia's government. Here in Brazil, a Catholic country, the elite too is "very religious" and supportive of "pastoral care". They "teach" the poor, yes. But all religion is presented as an excuse for leftist political activism. The main "thinker" of "religion" even dare say that the final aim of religion is political revolution which is a pre-condition for the coming of the Kingdom. Are we to suppose that because these people build churches (and they do build them) that they have any other purpose than the political advancement of their political ideologies and of their powerlust intentions? Of course not. All religion , for them, is still one more weapon to gain the sympathy of the people for themselves and even the religion they present has "social ends" which corrupts the very process.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fabio,
Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
I think that there are several things in your assessment of Russia which do not take enough account of the real & positive changes there in the past decade. As Edward acknowledges there are still real problems from the Soviet era and from the way in which the transition from communism occured (the wild, wild east). But the analogy with NEP I think is not correct. With NEP the totalitarian ideal still remained, the creation of the 'new man' and the use of state terror to achieve this. And as far as the Church was concerned it was still being persecuted and militant atheism was still the core value of the Bolshevik state. Russia now is not like this.
Present day Russia is not communism in disguise even though it is true that many old time power-brokers still are around. It is important to distinguish between the practice of communist power & the way power as practiced has some influences from the past. Meanwhile it also has other influences from uncontrolled capitalism. And now there are voices including that of the Church for the practice of responsible power that cares for the people. In any case remember that Russia was the centre of Bolshevism & Communism for at least 70 years. This means that upon the collapse of communism there were almost no people left in Russia who had a living memory of what came before the Revolution. So compared to other former communist countries in Europe the scars will be very deep in Russia. We need to give things time and not jump to the conclusion that a return to communism is imminent at every challenge.
I think that now we can look back and see the sparks of light that were in Russia even in the darkest days that were not there for example in China. Why this was so I do not know- because Russia had been Orthodox or because it had been part of the European family of nations? In any case I don't think that we should entirely overlook the significance of a Kruschev or a Gorbachev (or even Yeltsin before his falling off the edge) and that out of the darkness Russia was still capable of producing such characters. This shows the potential of Russia even if at times it is hidden.
The 'Steve' analogy is often heard about Russia and is also applied to the Church. 'Steve' though for the most part is literally no longer alive. The monster 'Steve' lived in the 1930s & even then he was not 'mr. & mrs. everyday Russian', he was a tiny minority. So now we have the grand-son of 'Steve' with some influences but literally he is not the same person. There are some extremist groups adamantly against reconciliation with the Church (and society) in Russia who have actually developed a 'theology' based on the idea of 'genetic sin'- ie that 'grand-son of Steve' must have the sin of 'Steve'. It's as if when it comes to Russia there is a cosmic predestination that condemns her to eternal perdition. But this is neither a correct Orthodox view of man nor of God's providence. Thankfully for us God provides the grace so that man can at any moment resist the death that surrounds him. The freedom of Christ's life is precisely that we are not condemned by our social environment. Of course an open proclamation of guilt and repentance from some would be helpful. But when it comes to a whole society and how it can change then it could very well be that the younger generation is quietly repenting and also changing the way they live compared to past generations. Isn't this is exactly the type of repentance that God accepted from Israel after its return to the Holy Land from exile in Babylon ?
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fabio Lins]

Fr. Raphael,
Steve is an ideology, not a person. He is still there.
Gorbachev as "such a character"? Here is a quote from him even during the Perestroika:

" There can be no truce in the fight against religion because, while it exists, communism will not prevail. We must itensify the destruction of all religions wherever they are practiced or taught." Mikhail Gorbatchëv em 12/15/1987

As for Kurschev, here is what his tutor, Dimitri Manuilsky, said even in 1931:

A war to death between communism and capitalism is innevitable. Today, to be sure, we are not strong enough. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. To win, we need the element of surprise, the bourgeois must first be softened, as it had been given anesthesia by a false feeling of safety. One day we will stage the most theatrical pacifist movement the world has ever seen. We will make unbelievable concessions. Those capitalist countries, stupid and decadent...will fall in the trap offered by the possibility of making new friends and markets, and they will help in their own destruction.

That time is now. What the Russian government is doing is merely using the Church a "humanitarian" mask in the "most theatrical pacifist movement the world has seen" as a step to its full destruction as planned in Gorbatchëv's period. And nothing more. To be sure, the Church can and will survive any such attempt. I am just not sure that a single jurisdiction can.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> Re: "That time is now. What the Russian government is doing is merely using the Church a "humanitarian" mask in the "most theatrical pacifist movement the world has seen"'. I'm not much on conspiracy theory. But what you have written is pretty fantastic. And it is similar to the rumors that the Pentagon was not hit by a jet passenger plane and the Jewish state took over the USA on 9/11 because all the Jews who worked in the Twin Towers were warned to stay home by some grand Jewish network. I find it impossible to believe that a plane didn't hit the pentagon because the missing passenger plane would have to be explained..so what happened to it? Was it shot down and all the passengers killed? What? Shot down over the ocean...And the twin towers? Well, I am sorry but I just don't have that much faith in human nature..I just don't think that that many people, like over 6000 Jews working there could all keep their mouths shut. Besides if you take a look at the names listed as having been killed n the Twin Towers you will see listed many, many Jewish names. And as far as the Supreme Soviet relinquishing all power in some grand scheme to take over the world!?! I find it easier to believe that bunnies lay chocolate eggs. That kind of thinking smacks of pure Roman Catholic long time desire to take over Russia using any reason they can conjure. Dream on!

[Fabio Lins]

Vasilis,

You fail to differentiate a conspiracy theory from a simple political strategy. That a government tries to use the media and authoritative bodies for propaganda is not a conspiracy (which is a short term secrete agreement by a small group of people to achieve very specific objectives).

Theology of Liberation is the product of such *strategy* in the Roman Church. There never was a need for a conspiracy, much less a state to achieve that. Likewise, no one needs a conspiracy to try to use the likeness of the Orthodox Church to achieve political aims. What politicians do everyday - pretending to be pious to gain the sympathy of the people - parties and government bodies do collectively also. *IF* they have an intelligence service that is both experience and competent they will and do use it.

[Jill]

"IF they have an intelligence service that is both experienced and competent they will and do use it"... The CIA and other arms of US intelligence don't seem to have shown any great competence in the last few years re anticipating 9/11, finding Bin Laden or Saddam's WMDs, yet even when this came to light, American voters still voted Bush in again! Go figure...http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/wink.gif

[Kosta]

Wait a sec!
Are you saying that SCCOBA is uncanonical???
After all the canons say only one juridiction per country, yet the SCCOBA acronym says there are many canonical bishops and synods in america.

I find it humurous.

IF only one church can be the canonical orthodox church (oca???) according to the canons, then the rest are uncanonical (but still Orthodox). I always wished SCCOBA would change their name to something more accurate. After all it is an umbrella group of orthodox churches who are in communion with the ancient patriarchates and each other, not the canonical jurisdictions of america.

[Mark Harrison]

Wait a sec!
Are you saying that SCCOBA is uncanonical???
After all the canons say only one juridiction per country, yet the SCCOBA acronym says there are many canonical bishops and synods in america.

I find it humurous.

IF only one church can be the canonical orthodox church (oca???) according to the canons, then the rest are uncanonical (but still Orthodox). I always wished SCCOBA would change their name to something more accurate. After all it is an umbrella group of orthodox churches who are in communion with the ancient patriarchates and each other, not the canonical jurisdictions of america.

This appears to be an old thread. We'll see if anybody responds.

Isn't our entire situation in North Americca uncanonical? I'd certainly say so, and that includes the OCA. One could say that the OCA is uncanonical if for no other reason than it has buried the talented entrusted to it, having not acted like an autocephalous church. But my real point is that we are all in a situation of which the canons never conceived. As Fr Raphael has pointed out, the multiple jurisdictions have served a purpose - that of tending to the particular needs of the various ethnic groups who came to North America, fleeing from Communism, poverty, and whatever else. The situation has not been a case of one hierarchy deliberately invading the territory of another. We do need to remedy this situation. We need to find a solution that will meet the needs both of those who have been born and raised in North America and the immigrants. Until we do, however, I'd say our situation is far from terminal cancer, but more serious than a pricked finger.

Fr Alexander Schmemann observed at one point in the 1960s that canonicity could not depend on a jurisdiction's relationship to a mother church, e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarchate. If it did, we'd all be in potential trouble. Some early church Fathers, whom we certainly uphold, were clear that catholicity meant being in communion with Rome. At the 4th Oecumenical Council, ROME not Constantinople, was established in the first place. But it is a very Roman Catholic legalistic argument to say that it is the office itself that is the criterion. As Fr Alexander pointed out, it is canonically ordered life of the local jurisdiction that makes it canonical. One would general expect that such a canonically ordered life would include communion with others, since communion is a basic component of ecclesial life.

Sadly, only a few years later Fr Alexander appeared to reverse himself and call groups like ROCOR uncanonical. I suppose that if questioned, Fr Alexander would have said that the manner in which they walled themselves off, and the reasons for it, demonstrated a profund degree of disorder - life threatening uncanonicity. Be that as it may, I tend to think that nobody in the twentieth century was a bastion of canonical orderliness.

It is really wonderful to see such a balanced discussion of canonicity here, one that involves people from various jurisdictions. In my own opinion, this suggests that none of us is suffering from terminal uncanonicity.

[Father David Moser]

There is a lot of talk about the need for a single hierarchy in North America and that somehow the current situation is uncanonical. Perhaps so, however, it has also been noted that the situation in the diaspora (not just North America) is one that was never addressed in the canons or by the fathers. Only in the past century did it become possible for so many people to be scattered throughout the world in such a short time. The canons are based on assumptions of immigration without mass transport (air and sea especially) by rapid means. The technology of travel has created a situation that is not forseen in the canons.

OK - from this point on we enter into pure speculation and opinion. This is not the teaching of the Church, nor is it even any kind of authoritative statement - it is only my personal opinion (and even then it is still "under development" and not fully formed and so subject to modification at any time)

Now the Church is a living entity - it is not simply an organization or a corporation, but it is a divine/human organism. Thus she has the ability to change and adapt to new situations. This new situation may require the adaptation of multiple overlapping jurisdictions. It may be that the diaspora is a new model, requiring new canons, requring the Church to adjust to provide what is needed for the salvation of her flock. Perhaps this "uncanonical" situation in the diaspora is indeed such an adaptation.

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

I agree with both posts#53 & 54.
I would like the opinions on a hypothetical situation.
Lets say a single jurisdiction is achieved. Each jurisdiction currently has its own cultural customs. For instance in the greek churches on the feast day of St Basil, families and the church bake a cake with a coin inside it called a Vasilopita. Do you think such a custom will continue to exist in those churches that were always greek or will it die out?
Truthfully though, there is one dreaded "custom" found in the GOAA that i cant stand and think it needs to be done away with, thats the musical organ. I think retaining something like that may shock many who enter that church when their local parish never had one. For instance i know a carpatho-russian (which are under the e.p.) who attended a GOAA church for a wedding. He was in shock when he heard the organ playing instrumental protestant music as the bride and groom ushered out!. He asked me when the greeks adopted organs. I was embarrased to tell him they have been in use in american-greek churches for over 80 years!

[Mark Harrison]

I agree with Fr David that the holy fathers could never haven foreseen the present situation in North America, Western Europe, Australia, and other areas of 'diaspora' when they promulgated the canons. Perhaps this situation is therefore better described as 'extra-canonical,' rather than 'uncanonical,' since the latter term is usually connotes a sense of being against the canons, while the former signifies being outside of the canons. Certainly the kind of travel that is now possible, the kind of immigration and upheaval that lead to our present situation, were never heard of when the canons were composed. Yes, the population of one area might flee invaders and go into another Orthodox jurisdiction, but not the populations of multiple Orthodox lands all at once going into the mission territory of one or another jurisdiction. This being the case, I should also have to agree with Fr David that our present situation demands that we 'think outside the box.' It is going to be necessary to develop creative solutions that effectively address the needs of the Orthodox faithful in the present situation. Although the reasons for migration are different than they were in the first half of the twentieth century, migration is still happening. For example, the recent problems in the Diocese of Sourozh apparently arose from the recent immigration of Russians into Great Britain. It seems reasonable to expect that the solutions allowed by the letter of the canons may not suffice to fully address our present problems.

At the same time, the very term 'diaspora' points to an important characteristic of our anamolous situation. Indeed with continued migration there is a 'diaspora' of Orthodox from the traditional Orthodox lands. At the same time, however, there are many of us for whom the situation is not one of 'diaspora' at all. We are indigenous Orthodox, British, or American, or Australian, or other. I have been Orthodox for twenty-three years now. I presently live in Alaska, where Orthodoxy was planted over two-hundred years ago. The term 'diaspora' just does not fit my circumstances, nor do I believe that the diaspora outlook will ultimately meet the needs of those who are growing up Orthodox in Alaska, or California, or New York, or London, or Paris, or Sydney. Many of us, whether converts, or second or third generation cradle Orthodox, are not removed from our homes, we are at home. America is the only home I have ever known. So, we have Orthodox from traditional Orthodox lands who do see themselves as part of a diaspora, interpersed among Orthodox who are native to the nations and cultures where Orthodox was more recently planted and do not see themselves as forming a diaspora at all.

Fr David suggests that it is possible that a plurality of jurisdictions might in fact prove to be the best way to manage this new situation. Fr Raphael has observed that if there has been any benefit to the mulitplicity of jurisdictions, it has been that each has been able to tend to the needs of its own diaspora. I agree that that multiplicity of jurisdictions have had the benefit of tending the immigrant populations in diaspora, and such care needs to continue. The newest violence in the Middle East may lead to yet more migration, for example, causing more need for such pastoral care to be provided. The present circumstances suggest that Fr David's suggestion ought to be dismissed out of hand. We should ask ourselves if single, united jurisdictions in North America, Western Europe, and elsewhere would continue to meet those needs. If we allow the multiplicity of jurisdictions, some could continue to meet the immigrant needs, while others could meet the needs of the indigenous populations. That would seem to be the logic and the current arrangement has met these particular goals.

Although I see the basis in reality and logic for what Fr David is suggesting, I must strongly agree with Metropolitan PHILIP, Fr Thomas Hopko, and others who have observed that our administrative disunity leaves us impaired, both in terms of internal life, and external witness and mission. Although the Greek Archdiocese and the Antiochian Archdiocese are well funded and have far more plentiful and superior resources than other jurisdictions, the simple fact is that combined, our resources would go so much further. They could be used more effectively, and more efficiently. Other jurisdictions, like the OCA, simply do not have the resources required to adequately do the work that needs to be done. Worse yet, whether it is intended or not, we set ourselves up to compete against each other. In some places, perhaps many places, where the entire Orthodox population could be forming one community, there are at least two; and I am referring more to situations in which there are two English-speaking parishes, such as an Antiochian and an OCA parish, each being relatively small. How many Orthodox clergy and lay employees cannot afford medical insurance? The OCA's benefits are just too expensive. I find myself having to seriously consider leaving my job at St Herman Seminary in order to meet my family's basic needs for medical coverage and adequate housing. Being here is an incredible strain on my wife who suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and we are unable to get her adequate medical services on our budget, and we are wondering how well we'll keep the house heated this coming Winter. (That is NOT a veiled plea for charity.) Likewise, in how many cases, must clergy work outside jobs just to make ends meet? If we were not reduplicating efforts, spending money needlessly, how much better could we be meeting the basic needs of clergy and lay employees, and thus the needs of the faithful? These are just examples of the ways in which we are internally impaired by our disunity.

Our internal impairment leads to external impairment. We are able to engage the world around as well as we should be, in large part because of the internal waste or resources, and the inability to adequately pay our workers. When I look at the Moscow Patriarchate, I see a very different picture. Granted, Russian laws allow a different kind of co-operation between Church and State than will exist here in the United States, but even so, it is clear that the Russian Orthodox Church is engaging Russian society in numerous fields, and by numerous means. The MP also has a strong DECR, which recently participated in raising concern about the pathetic state of once Christian Europe. Could this be happening if Orthodox in Russia were administratively divided? It would take a lot to convince me that a conglomeration of jurisdictions could function the way the MP functions. This is not to say that the MP is perfect and all of its endeavours are praiseworthy, but while the benefits or wisdom of some might be up to debate (as they would be the case with all of us), the fact remains that the MP is forcefully engaging society. We in America and Western Europe are facing a society that is becoming increasingly hostile to any brand of Christianity that isn't politically correct (in which case it is tolerated, but not necessarily supported); Orthodox are going to soon find themselves at enmity with society in general, even if that enmity is subtle and quiet for a while. Pooling our resources in order to engage society is not a minor issue, it needs to be a priority - that is what we are called to do in the Gospel, and own welfare may depend on it. If there is an argument to be made for the multiplicity of jurisdictions being anti-canonical, this is it: divided, we squander our talents and fail to reach out to the world to the best of our ability.

Fr David made it pretty clear that he was not trying to assert any sort of authoritative opinion, but his underlying message about 'thinking outside the box' is a good one; appropriate to the circumstances and the canonical tradition. I have a different idea (at least as un-authoritative) about how we might adapt, while still coming together in one jurisdiction. I hope I can address Kosta's questions along the way:

At present, both the OCA and the Greek Archdiocese are divided into traditional territorial dioceses and also ethnic dioceses. This situation is also extra-canonical, but it does seem to be meeting the needs of the immigrant populations; perhaps not as well as might be hoped, but well enough for the moment. Under an overall unified jurisdiction, such a system should work even better, as long as there is support for the immigrant communities is understood to be as much a part of the Church's mission as support for the indigenous population and for mission is. In short, I propose a united jurisdiction with a triune mission statement of support for mission & evangelism, support for immigrant populations, and support for indigenous populations. A variant on this idea, might have vicar bishops in areas with large immigrant populations. These vicar bishops would function under the auspices of the local territorial diocese, but would have specific responsibility for the immigrants. That might mean more than one vicar bishop in a diocese. In the case of small immigrant populations, a vicar bishop from one diocese might act as a liaison with the diocesan bishop of another diocese. Furthermore, I suggest that these ethnic vicar bishops be recruited either from the immigrant population itself, or from their homelands, as appropriate to their situation. A united jurisdiction would be in a much better position to negotiate a request to Serbia or Romania or Russia to release an appropriate candidate to serve as vicar bishop. While the vicar bishop would be responsible to the local church, if he were from one of the 'mother' churches, he would then be in a position to foster good relations and mutual support as needed and appropriate, thus perhaps alleviating the fear that if they release their parishes to a local church, the mother churches will loose all the support they need so badly. In fact, come to think of it, support for Orthodox Churches in need might be a fourth leg of a mission statement, making it a quadrilateral.

If anyone happens to have access to the text of the address of Fr Josiah Trenham, it is worth reading in this context. I only have it in print form, not in electronic form. I'll try to get it in Word format or PDF. It is more extreme in the direction promoting the categorical need for jurisdictional unity than the position I have presented here, but I do think Fr Josiah made some excellent points from Biblical history, and Iam still weighing those. Like Fr David, therefore, I consider what I have said here to be my own opinion, and one subject to further development.

MAH

[Kris]

I came across this article (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/anti-patristic-stance-old-calendarist-zealots.aspx) today. It seemed to me to be a fairly even-handed treatment of heresy, uncanonical actions and the justification for schism.

The author essentially argues that while both the calendar change and increasing ecumenism are lamentable and contrary to the will of God, they do not justify the creation of rival synods or breach of Communion; something which has no real precedent in the Holy Fathers.

It would be interesting to see what you all make of it.

In XC,
Kris

[Kosta]

The "uncanonical problem" is not as it seems. Its a complex issue.

When articles are written "against and for" it always avoids the historical context and is slant towards the position the author holds.

For instance the greek old calendarists started off as a lay movement. A large segment of the greek population refused to adopt the new calendar. This was a strong movement among the most pious based on sound priniples.

After about 10 years in 1933, 2 bishops of the state church returned their diocese back to the old calendar. These bishops also assumed that the Church would hold a council and return to the Julian Calendar. A third bishop who originally retired as a form of protest and under the E.P. joined the two other bishops from the greek synod.
This was canonical of course. Bishops are in charge of there diocese. The schisms occured in 1935 when the two sides began excommunicating each other.

Most of the (dis)information on both sides is pure politics and propaganda. In fact 99% of whats being preached on both sides deal with events that have occured deades AFTER the initial schism.

For instance Old Calendarists point to the 1960's because this is when ecumenism took hold, the E.P. lifting anathemas with the pope and Orthodoxy joining the WCC.
On the other side of the coin what is termed as "World Orthodoxy" point to the various schisms the old calendarists have had within their movement over the decades and their extremism concerning new calendarists.

Sometimes its simply a matter of "one upping". Both sides searching each others history's since 1923 and pointing out canons that are or have been violated.
Another favorite tactic used amongs the two sides: Old calendarists pointing out the rampant freemasonry found within the E.P. (and among other juridictions) while the Canonical Churches point out many unstable clergy who probably have fallen into prelest within the old calendarist ranks.


The entire thing is actually silly. And even refering to one side uncanonical is misleading. The largest greek old calendar synod views itself as the "canonical" old calendar church and the other old calendar synod should rejoin them. Scoba considers themselves as the canonical bishops of America even though its uncanonical to have overlapping bishops and juridictions. The actual acronym of SCCOBA and what it stands for is uncanonical!

And then theres the definition of "canonical" being: A right-believing bishop gathered together with His Flock celebrating in Orthopraxis and partaking of that which TRULY UNITES US, the Holy Eucharist (as St Ignatius of Antioch taught)

And honest approach needs to be used by both sides where the mild mannered voices can dialogue. In which old calendarists avoid the extremism amongst the far right in their ranks and show some humility, that they too have violated the canons, and are willing to foregive. While the New Calendarist should stop lying to themselves about what really took place in the heretical Orthodox Congress of 1923 and we should get rid of our denial about what atleast 3 pan-Orthodox Councils concerning the new calendar explicitly taught. Our "Canonical Churches" should also quit the WCC in order to get the ball rollin. Lets face it, if any of you dont think that membership in the WCC requires the acknowledgement of the branch theory , i suggest you go to the WCC website directly and access their archives and constitution which basically spells it out. Or better yet read what the Orthodox ecumenists have publicly said during the WCC sessions (The Christian Activist quoted Orthodox during their speeches at the WCC and their acceptance of the branch theory)

In fact this is a good topic to start with. Both sides who are even headed can sit down and outline what are the boundaries of healthy ecumenism and what is unhealthy ecumenism which extends into heresy.


disclosure= Cradle Greek Orthodox under the EP my entire life.

[James Blackstock]

I tried to go to the WCC website and research the Branch Theory but found nothing. Can you help me to find this? What you say is very interesting!

[Kosta]

I tried to go to the WCC website and research the Branch Theory but found nothing. Can you help me to find this? What you say is very interesting!

Under the WCC participants can "spin" the by-laws of the WCC constitution in order not to alarm their laity. For instance the WCC allows member churches not to consider other churches "as churches in the fullest sense" but you do need to acknowledge them as churches. This is the branch theory! The twigs on the branches are less than the main branches.


In part III of the WCC constitution in the second paragraph a branch theory is laid out:

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/1-statements-documents-adopted/institutional-issues/constitution-and-rules-as-adopted.html

This is further clarified in the WCC Constitution under the section "Rules". Under "theological criteria" statments 5 & 6 further carifies this branch theory. (scroll down from the above listed link).

Under the heading "What is the World Council of Churches" we see written WCC member churches "are called to the goal of visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship." On the right side caption under a photo of certain clergy holding a common prayer it says the same thing but more bluntly, "It is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship. heres the link:


http://www.oikoumene.org/en/who-are-we.html


Here is a WCC document which is a complete embarrasment to those Orthodox that support the WCC. In fact this document has many many greeks to leave the canonical churches for old calendarism. The most shocking part is paragraph 4, where the WCC gives the green light for member churches to proselytise in eastern europe and the former soviet countries. In fact the final sentence of that paragraph refers to the hundreds of "member churches" as one "church" by saying "God is working thru his Church and in His Church"(in easetrn europe). (no its not a reference to Orthodoxy).


http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/unity-mission-evangelism-and-spirituality/visible-unity/16-10-03-call-for-common-witness-in-eastern-europe.html

Under the section of "questions and answers" the branch theory is further verified under the questions, "What is the aim of the WCC" and the eye opening cryptic answer as to why the RC are not members. see the question "Is the Roman Catholic Church a member?"

scroll down:


http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/faq-e.html

[James Blackstock]

Thanks Kosta!

I did a lot of reading on this sight! I can see why Metropolitan Phillip withdrew.

[Jimmy K]

I found the canons of the Russian Church very interesting. At our church, we don't even have a veil anymore, and the Royal Doors are less than waist high. Most women do not cover their heads in church. I, for one, like this change.

When I was a child, our church had a top to bottom Royal "sliding" Door. I always felt so separated from the service when it was closed. The change in the door came about when we were blessed with a new priest. (Our prior priest, who removed the church from the Archdiocese, stole nearly $100,000 from the church.)

Our new priest (when I was a child) set about renewing the faith of the congregation. After about a year, he started encouraging tithing. A year or so later, we started replacing the Italian style icons with Byzantine Icons. We sent the Italian icons to a mission in Ethiopia. At the time the icons changed, so did the sliding door. It is now two doors adorned with the icons depicting the Annunciation.

Our services are primarily in English, with some Greek thrown in, and eventually some Slavonic. Our congregation probably grew by a third.