Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky). Confessor and Righteous
Voznesensky is a Russian surname of church origin, associated with the Feast of the Ascension. Initially it was distributed among the clergy and students of church schools. Famous speakers: Voznesensky, Alexander: Voznesensky, Alexander... ... Wikipedia
Filaret- (Greek Φιλάρετος “Loving virtue”) male name Greek origin; in Russia it is used primarily as a monastic word. Also common among monasticism female uniform Philareta. Filaret Chernov is a poet of the early 20th century.... ... Wikipedia
Filaret Drozdov- (before tonsure Vasily Mikhailovich) Metropolitan of Moscow, b. 26 Dec 1782 in the city of Kolomna, Moscow province, where his father Mikhail Feodorovich was the cathedral archpriest; died 19 Nov. 1867 After home education under the guidance of ... ...
Filaret (Archbishop of Smolensk)- Archbishop Philaret Archbishop of Smolensk and Mstislav 1658 1671 Predecessor: Isaiah (Kopinsky) ... Wikipedia
Filaret, Archbishop of Smolensk- (in schema Theodorite) Archbishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, died in 1681. It is known about him that before becoming a bishop, in the fifties of the 17th century he was the archimandrite of the Zvenigorod Savvin Storozhevsky Monastery of the Moscow Diocese. In 1656 or... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Metropolitan Filaret- Philaret (Greek Φιλάρετος “Loving Virtue”) is a male name of Greek origin; in Russia it is used primarily as a monastic word. The female form of Philaret is also common among monasticism. Filaret Chernov is a poet of the early 20th century. Author... ...Wikipedia
Dimitry (Voznesensky)- Archbishop Dimitri (in the world Nikolai Fedorovich Voznesensky; May 1871, Kursk province January 31, 1947, Leningrad) bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop of Hailar, vicar of the Harbin diocese. Spiritual writer. Biography... ...Wikipedia
Pechersky Ascension Monastery- Pechersky Ascension Monastery monastery... Wikipedia
Agapit Voznesensky- (before Semyon's tonsure) b. in 1793, died on January 1, 1854, Bishop of Tomsk and Yenisei from August 12, 1834 to June 10, 1841, and then a member of the Moscow Synodal Office. Voznesensky was a candidate of the third graduating class of St. Petersburg. spiritual... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Yaransky Ascension Monastery- Yaransky Monastery Ascension Monastery Country Russia City 612260 Yaransk, Naberezhnaya St., 35 b ... Wikipedia
Books
- Synopsis on the Law of God. Abridged Orthodox Christian Catechism, Abbot Philaret, Archpriest Nikolai Voznesensky. This edition of the wonderful work of Rev. N. Voznesensky (Archbishop of Khailar) is almost the best leadership to knowledge of the Orthodox religion for those entering... Buy for 362 UAH (Ukraine only)
- Abridged Orthodox Christian Catahism. Notes on the Law of God, Hegumen Filaret, Archpriest Nikolai Voznesensky. We present to your attention the book “Abridged Orthodox Christian Catechism”, “Synopsis on the Law of God”…
Subsequently, he became a monk with the name Demetrius, became a presbyter, then an archbishop, and in the year returned to the USSR, where he died.
One of the Bishop’s colleagues at the institute recalls:
Large church and pastoral preaching activities were carried out by Fr. Archimandrite Philaret. The worshipers rushed to the temple where he served. He was loved by all segments of the Orthodox population of Harbin. The name of Archimandrite Philaret was widely known outside the Harbin diocese. He was kind and accessible to everyone who approached him. And there were a lot of people who turned to him. Going to him, they knew that they would receive the right advice, that they would have consolation and help. Father Archimandrite Philaret was very strict with himself; he was known as a true ascetic. And what a rare memory our kind, warm-hearted ruler had. When meeting him, he showed great interest in all aspects of our lives; he didn’t need to be reminded of his needs or difficulties; he himself developed the topic of conversation with you and gave ready-made answers.
After the occupation Soviet troops In Manchuria, the elderly Metropolitan of Harbin Meletius (Zaborovsky) recognized the power of the Moscow Patriarchate over himself and his clergy, but Archimandrite Philaret resolutely refused to accept the Soviet passport. When a newspaper reporter came to him for an interview, asking how he viewed “the wise step of the Soviet government in inviting the Russian population of Harbin to become citizens of their homeland again,” he received the following bold answer:
I do not consider it possible to accept and will not accept Soviet citizenship until I am factually and undoubtedly 100% convinced that the persecution of religion, anti-religious propaganda and persecution of Church ministers have completely stopped, and the Church, which is not “separated”, and expelled from the state, she again took her rightful position in it.
Archimandrite Filaret did not accept Soviet citizenship until the end of his stay in China, despite all the dangers and penalties associated with such a position. After reviewing the number Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which Lenin was listed among the geniuses-benefactors of the human race, he expressed his indignation in a sermon that became widely known.
His cell was set on fire by unknown assailants, but he escaped with severe burns.
Protecting his flock in every possible way, he, in his own words, “never desecrated his lips and his prayer - prayer for the servants of Antichrist,” despite repeated threats. At the same time, for a number of years, Archimandrite Philaret communicated in various ways with the head of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasius.
The Metropolitan was a wonderful preacher. Deep faith, fiery prayer, kindness and benevolence, concern that the spiritual world is not disturbed and unshakable standing in the confession of the Truth - all this was characteristic features Bishop Philaret.
Under Metropolitan Philaret, church-wide glorification of saints began in the Church Abroad, which anticipated their glorification in their homeland: the holy righteous John of Kronstadt (November 13), St. Herman of Alaska (July 25/26), Holy Blessed Xenia (September 24), and, most importantly, of them, the holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia (November 1 of the year).
Throughout his ministry, Bishop Philaret showed himself to be a fiery denouncer of ecumenism; he never tired of addressing exhorting messages to the heads of other Local Churches, and his voice was listened to by many outside the fence of the Church Abroad. Denouncing the Moscow Patriarchate and calling on the Orthodox to stand uncompromisingly in the Truth, the Bishop lived with faith in healing the wounds of the Russian Church.
He died on November 21. His convictions were expressed in his dying testament. Published Spiritual Testament Metropolitan said:
These words, taken from the holy book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), in our time, in our sorrowful, evil days filled with temptations, have a special significance. They remind us of the precious spiritual wealth that we, children, possess Orthodox Church.
Yes, we are rich. And this spiritual wealth is what the Holy Church has and which belongs to all Her faithful children. The teaching of faith - our wonderful, saving Orthodox faith, numerous living examples of the lives of people who lived by faith, according to those high principles and rules that the Church offers us, and who reached that spiritual purity and height, which is called holiness; the beauty and splendor of our Orthodox worship and living participation in it through faith and prayer; the fullness of a grace-filled spiritual life, open to one and all, and as the crown of everything, the unity of the children of the Church in that love about which the Savior said: “therefore people will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another.”
Metropolitan Filaret.
At the same time, before his death, the bishop secretly bequeathed to his cell attendant, Protodeacon Nikita Chakirov, in due time, “when the Lord liberates the Russian Motherland, when the blessed days predicted by St. Seraphim, the Wonderworker of Sarov, come,” to hand over his First Hierarchal vestments to the Most Holy Moscow Patriarch. This covenant was fulfilled on November 12, when Mitred Archpriest Roman Lukyanov, rector of the Epiphany Church in Boston, donated the staff and vestments of the third First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad to Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II.
Relics and veneration
In the year, it was decided to transfer the remains of the deceased First Hierarch from the crypt of the cemetery Assumption Church to a new tomb under the altar of the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Jordanville Monastery. When the tomb was opened on November 10, the relics of the saint turned out to be incorruptible - they were light color; The skin, beard and hair are completely preserved. The bishop's vestments, the Gospel, the letter with the prayer of permission, the cross and the air that covered the face of the deceased were completely intact. Even the white cloth that covered the body on top retained its dazzling whiteness. The metal clasps of the Gospel in the coffin crumbled into dust when touched.
After Divine Liturgy On November 21, Archbishop Laurus (Shkurla) called on those gathered to pray for the repose of the soul of the deceased First Hierarch until the will of God regarding his veneration as a saint is indicated. After the Liturgy, a requiem service was performed, and then the coffin with the relics of St. Philaret was carried in a procession around the Holy Trinity Cathedral and brought into the tomb to the prepared place.
After the death of Metropolitan Philaret, a number of cases of grace-filled healings and miraculous help to people who turned to him in prayer were documented.
Father Seraphim (Rose) wrote about Bishop Philaret:
Like St. To the fathers of antiquity, he places the purity of Orthodoxy above all else and, true to the spirit of the Ecumenical Councils, remains in the midst of general religious confusion a lonely defender of the truth... (The) great merit of Bishop Philaret at this critical stage in the history of the Church lies precisely in the fact that he, without a hint to the Pharisaic deification of one or another letter of church law, and without the slightest inclination to sift out “evidence of heresy” from the statements of ecumenist bishops, he clearly discovered the very heretical, anti-Orthodox spirit that stands behind modern ecumenism in all its manifestations and warned , what danger they pose today and what disaster they are preparing in the future. However, to the greatest regret, only a few of the Orthodox clergy and laity fully realized the seriousness of Bishop Philaret’s warning. Both the “left” and the “right” do not understand him.
Voznesensky is a Russian surname of church origin, associated with the Feast of the Ascension. Initially it was distributed among the clergy and students of church schools. Famous speakers: Voznesensky, Alexander: Voznesensky, Alexander... ... Wikipedia
Filaret- (Greek Φιλάρετος “Loving virtue”) male name of Greek origin; in Russia it is used primarily as a monastic word. The female form of Philaret is also common among monasticism. Filaret Chernov is a poet of the early 20th century.... ... Wikipedia
Filaret Drozdov- (before tonsure Vasily Mikhailovich) Metropolitan of Moscow, b. 26 Dec 1782 in the city of Kolomna, Moscow province, where his father Mikhail Feodorovich was the cathedral archpriest; died 19 Nov. 1867 After home education under the guidance of ... ...
Filaret (Archbishop of Smolensk)- Archbishop Philaret Archbishop of Smolensk and Mstislav 1658 1671 Predecessor: Isaiah (Kopinsky) ... Wikipedia
Filaret, Archbishop of Smolensk- (in schema Theodorite) Archbishop of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, died in 1681. It is known about him that before becoming a bishop, in the fifties of the 17th century he was the archimandrite of the Zvenigorod Savvin Storozhevsky Monastery of the Moscow Diocese. In 1656 or... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Metropolitan Filaret- Philaret (Greek Φιλάρετος “Loving Virtue”) is a male name of Greek origin; in Russia it is used primarily as a monastic word. The female form of Philaret is also common among monasticism. Filaret Chernov is a poet of the early 20th century. Author... ...Wikipedia
Dimitry (Voznesensky)- Archbishop Dimitri (in the world Nikolai Fedorovich Voznesensky; May 1871, Kursk province January 31, 1947, Leningrad) bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop of Hailar, vicar of the Harbin diocese. Spiritual writer. Biography... ...Wikipedia
Pechersky Ascension Monastery- Pechersky Monastery Ascension Monastery ... Wikipedia
Agapit Voznesensky- (before Semyon's tonsure) b. in 1793, died on January 1, 1854, Bishop of Tomsk and Yenisei from August 12, 1834 to June 10, 1841, and then a member of the Moscow Synodal Office. Voznesensky was a candidate of the third graduating class of St. Petersburg. spiritual... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
Yaransky Ascension Monastery- Yaransky Monastery Ascension Monastery Country Russia City 612260 Yaransk, Naberezhnaya St., 35 b ... Wikipedia
Books
- Synopsis on the Law of God. Abridged Orthodox Christian Catechism, Abbot Philaret, Archpriest Nikolai Voznesensky. This edition of the wonderful work of Rev. N. Voznesensky (Archbishop of Hailar) is perhaps the best guide to knowledge of the Orthodox faith for those entering the... Buy for 362 UAH (Ukraine only)
- Abridged Orthodox Christian Catahism. Notes on the Law of God, Hegumen Filaret, Archpriest Nikolai Voznesensky. We present to your attention the book “Abridged Orthodox Christian Catechism”, “Synopsis on the Law of God”…
“Metropolitan Philaret is a man of deep ascetic life. Look at his appearance! He was a man of prayer, recalls Bishop Philaret (Voznesensky) Archpriest Alexy Kotar, rector of Nikolaevskoe cathedral in Seattle (Washington State, USA). “The holy Bishop John of Shanghai himself nominated him as a candidate. Both Saint John and someone else were candidates then, and as a compromise, Bishop John proposed choosing a young bishop - Bishop Philaret.
To some extent, Bishop Philaret was like a father to me, because when I studied at the Russian gymnasium in New York, Last year During my studies, my parents left for San Francisco, my father (Archpriest Nikolai Kotar. - A.N.) was transferred there, and Bishop Philaret undertook to somehow look after me, called me to him, instructed, corrected. He loved young people very much and often met with young people. We had clubs on Sundays; we came straight to his chambers, where he treated us and talked with us. When he came to our house, he loved to sit at the piano: he played some things, including his own, and was a good musician and composer.
What else can I say about him? Metropolitan Philaret was very strict about church canons, was a zealot for church order, and was very worried about the new style, about ecumenism. But his experiences are one thing, and the position of the first hierarch is another. In a personal conversation, he once told me: “I don’t know whether grace remains in Russia.” But the Synod never heard this from him, this did not become the official point of view. The same goes for the calendar. He said that the new calendar is unfavorable. But I myself witnessed how one day a young Greek priest came to us on the feast of the Annunciation. They, in the Greek church, did not serve an all-night vigil, and he came to us, stood quietly in the temple and prayed. The father told the bishop that there was a Greek New Calendar priest in the temple, and he immediately asked to invite him to the altar, spoke briefly with him and ordered him to bring a phelonion. And this New Calendar priest came out with us to the polyeleos. “Vladyka loved everyone, was very patient, and rooted for truth and unity.”
The word of Metropolitan Philaret published below, “Orthodoxy, heterodoxy and ecumenism,” was said at the opening of pastoral and theological courses in Jordanville. Archival recording of the word provided by Evgeny Lukyanov († 2007).
Orthodoxy, heterodoxy and ecumenism
People of the older generation remember well what we had in Mother Rus' in our time; They remember well how many different religious educational institutions we had. And the highest ones, like academies, and the middle ones, like seminaries, and the lowest ones, like theological schools. Now the conditions are completely different. And as you yourself, of course, know, here in the Church Abroad, in fact, a real full-fledged spiritual institution is only our seminary, which has been working at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville for several years now. To help this spiritual institution in all possible ways, spiritual pastoral courses are being opened, for which we thank God, because in our time we need to value, support and protect in every possible way those organizations and institutions where it is possible to offer church teaching to people.
Of course, compared to the past, we have one advantage. You know well, friends, as we used to say in Mother Rus', that the most desperate blasphemers and atheists came from seminarians. Perhaps in this formulation it sounded too exaggerated and exaggerated, but there is no smoke without fire, because, indeed, this used to happen all the time. People entered the seminary who were not at all suitable for it, and in the end they left to turn out to be enemies of the faith.
Let me now recall what I did not intend to say at first, but now I remember - the story of the writer A.V. Amphiteatrova about how the famous scientist, professor, Archpriest Nikolai Sergievsky once taught theology at Moscow University. One day, a young man from a very intelligent aristocratic family was answering a theology exam. The response was exceptionally brilliant. So great was the knowledge of the young man who answered that the answer at times almost turned into a debate between professor and student. This almost hour-long exam is over. Archpriest Nikolai Sergievsky, giving him an “A”, said: “You are probably a complete atheist by conviction?” He blushed: “How could you know?” “By the nature of your knowledge and answers. You teach this in order to argue with us.” And then, when a year later his younger brother, a very modest and God-fearing young man, also answered very well, but not nearly as brilliantly as his older brother, the professor, also giving him an “A”, asked: “You are not the brother of such a That? Your answer is brilliant, thank you. Your brother’s answer was even better, but I give you full marks with much greater pleasure.”
That was then. Now the possibility that from the spiritual educational institution an opponent of the faith may come out, much less, because now a person will go to the seminary and even to pastoral courses who really seeks both spiritual edification and spiritual enlightenment. And God would grant that our modest undertaking would go and be supported by our only theological seminary.
Once in Harbin I had to read a book by a theosophist who, defending his theosophical doctrines, said: “There is no religion higher than truth. This is our basic dogma, theosophical. That is why all religions are valuable because they all seek the truth.” It seems like a rather attractive statement, which, however, is internally false. Why? Yes, because if all religions seek the truth, but speak about it in different ways, then how can they be considered equal? It's the same as if twelve identical clocks hang side by side on the wall and show different time, and we will argue: since they are all made to show time, then all their readings are equivalent. In fact, some show correctly, others show incorrectly, and maybe all of them are incorrect. In any case, the truth is one, and by showing different things, they cannot all tell the truth.
The same can be said about religion. Of course, religion is the highest point of the human spirit, so a Christian believer will never laugh at someone else’s religion, no matter how primitive it may be. But that's one thing. On the other hand, if this theosophical statement is so false, then outwardly, I repeat, it seems quite attractive. And the author of this book, a theosophist, says: “We managed to unite representatives of almost all religions, in particular, almost all Christian faiths, with the exception of one stubborn one - Orthodoxy. It does not want to take this point of view. It says that it does not seek the truth, but possesses it in full; it has nothing to seek. And therefore, it can offer this truth to anyone who wants it, to anyone who is looking for it, who cares about it in his soul. But Orthodoxy has nothing to look for; it is a religion that contains the revealed truth. And since there is only one truth, then, consequently, Orthodoxy does not want to unite with any other religion.”
Absolutely right. What is valuable in Orthodoxy is that it confesses its faith, that divinely revealed truth, which was not invented by people in their conjectures about God and about faith, but which was brought from heaven to earth by the Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, God's mind, God's power, God's wisdom. That is why this determines the eternity, steadfastness and constancy of our true Orthodox religion, our Orthodox faith, this true authentic Christianity. The Lord Jesus Christ said to His apostles: “Everything that I have heard from My Father, I have said everything.” That is why the Apostle Peter at one time pointed out: “Everything we need for life and godliness has been given to us from the Lord.” These words of the Savior do not contradict His other words spoken at the same Last Supper, when He said: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.” It's about not that they were told an incomplete truth, but only that they could not fully comprehend it. “And when the Comforter Spirit comes, He will remind you of what He told you and will illuminate your mind so that it will understand the truth and perceive it in its entirety.” The Church always teaches that the fullness of truth, the fullness of vision belongs precisely to the entire Universal Church, and not to any one person. So, consequently, the content of our faith is already given. It was formulated at the Ecumenical Councils, concisely contained in the comprehensive Creed. Further, the Church says that it is revealed in its depth in the history of the Church, in the works of the patrists, and is assimilated as a saving truth by every human soul in the feat of life, in study, in reverent perception of what the Church offers as divinely revealed truth. But nothing else, completely new, can be added.
Our Orthodox Church stands firmly on this. The basis of such an understanding was once warned by the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the Galatian Christians: “If not only we, but an angel from heaven preaches to you something different from what you have received (that is, something completely new), let him be anathema.” Therefore, if the truth is revealed to you in a new way, then in order to accept this clarification, a Christian must, first of all, take care of full compliance with the truth that already exists in our Orthodox Church. This should not be some kind of innovation, but only a conclusion from what the Church offers, a revelation of what has already been given. And this, I repeat, is the constancy, fidelity, strength and steadfastness of our Orthodoxy.
Once upon a time in Rus' we had an original thinker, philosopher, Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov, a great original. A man who sometimes thought not only not entirely churchly, but also completely unchurchly, at least spoke out. He expressed paradoxes, sometimes simply attacked Christianity, saying that Christianity robs life of its light, robs life of its joyful sides and makes it something gloomy, completely joyless for the soul. But if they say about a Russian person that his mind and heart are not in harmony, then this was precisely the case with such an original, Rozanov. His mind clearly rebelled against Christianity often, and his pen followed his mind and wrote many things that a Christian should not write. But his heart was drawn to the Church, drawn to Orthodoxy. He himself said that if he were to die, he wanted to invite the priest before his death and, before his death, to confess to him for his entire sinful life.
So, this original thinker said: “Why, when I enter the church, does my restless soul feel calm? Why, when I enter some very small, rural church, there is a sexton-psalm-reader on the choir reading and singing something, perhaps not always understanding the words that he chants and reads, old women stand and reverently pray, and they - it’s unlikely that they understand even half of what is sung, but why such peace and tranquility in the soul? Because we have entered the atmosphere of eternity, because here is the power of our faith, our Orthodoxy, the meaning of our Orthodox Church.
Here is this humble servant of the Church - a psalmist, a servant of God - in his place, reading and singing something there, and I know that before that, for hundreds of years, the same thing was read and sung. The Church sang and read this, the Church offered this to her children. We will not be there, others will follow us to Church, and they will hear the same thing, feel the same grace-filled atmosphere. So what if these old ladies maybe don’t understand everything? They eat here, they feel this fertile atmosphere, they live by it. And my sinful soul,” he says, “also feels the vitality of this spiritual atmosphere and feels the stone, feels the rock on which to lean, this constancy, this immutability.” It exists, as he correctly noted, only in the Orthodox Church. Beyond the threshold of the temple, the most amazing changes sometimes take place. Generations succeed generations, states disappear, and others appear in their place. And the Church does her work as she did it in apostolic times, as she does it now and will do it until the end, until this earthly history of mankind ends.
If you and I move on to the heterodox faith of Catholicism, then we know that its honest and sincere representatives openly admit that it is the Orthodox Church that preserves the truth as it was under the apostles and the Ecumenical Councils, and Catholicism has added something new to it. They consider these additions to be divinely inspired, they consider them dogmas, but they recognize that it is the Orthodox Church that inviolably preserves what is in it. And Catholicism, as you know, has invented a lot of new things. There is no time to talk about it in detail; you yourself know many of the points on which Catholicism moved away from Orthodoxy, away from true Christianity.
Down and Out trouble started. Allow something new, allow some innovation, as if a stone will roll down an inclined plane, and life shows how scary it is, how dangerous it is. We are now witnessing the terrible tragedy of Catholicism. Once upon a time a philosopher, I think Vysheslavtsev, wrote, recalling the terrible years of life in the Soviet Union in the first years after the revolution: “I issued many decrees Soviet authority, made a lot of orders. How did we live? We lived when we bypassed them, did not fulfill them, because to fulfill them meant to perish.” And this is what I remember all the time when I now hear that pious Catholics, raised in the faith of their fathers, are trying to preserve the same and live by some kind of pious aspiration, insofar as they do not at all accept the innovations of Catholicism, the destructive that associated with the so-called innovations of the so-called Roman high priest himself.
You see for yourself what is happening here, you see the tragedy of Catholicism, which seemed to stand as an indestructible rock. After all, they used to always look down on us, saying that we always have some kind of unrest, there is no unity, there is no unity, there is no one center, there is no one power, but we are as solid as a rock. That's how it crumbled, this rock, or at least it's starting to crumble now.
As for Protestantism, which appeared as a protest against those, frankly speaking, outrages with which Catholicism had disgraced itself by the time of the Middle Ages, it appeared as a healthy protest against these distortions of the truth. But, alas, it turned out that he protested and protested, and he moved in the other direction from true Christianity, from Orthodoxy further than Catholicism moved away from it. If you imagine a pendulum hanging straight and calmly (this would be Orthodoxy), and Catholicism swung somewhere away from it, then Protestantism swung in the other direction, but did not stop where Orthodoxy was, but, having flown away, ended up even further.
Protestantism also broke with much of what was still preserved in Catholicism. In Protestantism there is neither continuity of ordination, nor many sacraments, and hence the result that with such a lack of internal fidelity to the apostolic teaching, with such arbitrariness, Protestantism is fragmented, fragmented and fragmented into sects, into factions, into all sorts of branches and divisions, sometimes almost almost each other that they are exclusionary and in their extreme conclusions reaching almost to the complete denial of Christianity, to the denial of its foundations. And they do not honor the Mother of God and even doubt the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, in essence, they completely move away from Christian principles and beliefs.
And it is these tragedies of heterodox faiths that have given rise to the phenomenon that now confronts many souls who are weak or who do not sufficiently understand the matter as a poisonous temptation. This is what is now called “ecumenism.” I repeat once again that it is not possible to talk about it in detail here. But I will say, first of all, this, in a few words I will try to point out the main point of his inconsistency. Ecumenists say: we call for all Christian denominations to unite and merge into one. Each of them has some truth, they teach differently, they speak differently. And if they merge, share the truth, and discard their delusions, then it will work out new Church, true Christian in complete unity.
As if, again, a rather attractive prospect. But look, at what price are they offering it to us? We, like all other faiths, are told: you have some truth. Share! This means that in our confession, in our holy saving faith, we must recognize only a portion, and declare the rest as error. So I ask: what kind of Orthodox conscience, what kind of heart, soul of a Russian Orthodox man would you agree to something like this? In that saving faith that people once lived in ancient times, the holy fathers, our pious ancestors lived, the ardent Father John of Kronstadt and our great righteous people, should we declare only a share of truth, and the rest as error? Never, of course, the consciousness of an Orthodox person, the Orthodox soul, will agree to anything like that.
Having stayed a little longer on this diagram, you and I can see the paradoxes of ecumenism, which, again, point to its failure despite some apparent external attractiveness. First of all, what caused this? Of course, because the world is going through an era of all sorts of upheavals and vacillations. In order to experience all this calmly, you need to have a spiritual foundation. Scattered Christianity, especially scattered rumors of Protestantism, have completely lost unity, lost strength, lost the feeling of a possible connection with the heavenly triumphant Church, which they do not even think about, turning their gaze to earth, they are interpreting everything in order to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. And being in this perspective, they, as you yourself know, cannot find the truth, because it is not found that way.
They think that if fragmented, unfaithful, cowardly different opinions and confessions merge, then in unity they will create something powerful and spiritual, whereas it is known that no matter how many zeros you add, there will still be a zero. Ecumenism is based on the assertion that all religions are only partly correct, and the conclusion is drawn that if they unite, a new teaching, real Christianity, will be obtained. But this is paradoxical and implausible. And, besides, even more implausible is the basic idea from which he derives, that there is no completely true Church on earth among humanity. Because if it existed, then there would be no need for ecumenism, and everyone would simply join this Church. And the reason ecumenism preaches its teaching is that it believes that there is no true Church that truly possesses its fullness, but there are only confessions, groups of people who possess pieces, shares of truth. I repeat: such a formulation of the question is completely unacceptable for Orthodox self-awareness.
I wanted to say one more thing. If you and I, of course, as Orthodox Christians, as children of the Church, never think about joining such ecumenism, which says that you have only part of the truth, and in the rest you are mistaken, but meeting with dissidents is all- you, the future shepherds, will have to too. Please remember that if you have to talk with dissidents, then you need to take into account several circumstances. On the one hand, as the late Bishop Anthony pointed out, when talking about our faith and offering its truths to dissenters, we must offer our faith as it is, without in any way reducing its strict, precise requirements and high beginnings to please anyone - whether his interlocutor or some prevailing trends.
Vladyka Anthony once pointed out that the so-called adaptability of the Catholic clergy to the flock is explained by the fact that they do not raise the flock to the top, but lower their faith to it. But this is something that an Orthodox pastor, a missionary, or anyone who has to talk about faith should never do. Present it as it is, in all its height, in all its purity, in all its luminous, but strict, without belittling or chopping it off, without cutting it off, I repeat, to please anyone.
On the other hand, when talking with dissidents, you should always talk with a certain warmth and friendliness, offering all this in the spirit of love. As Bishop Anthony said: “Eliminate, if possible, everything that can offend your interlocutor, scratch, or push away. Offer the truths of faith as they are, but so that it is warmed by the warmth of sincere benevolence.”
One church writer wrote: “I was recently at a dispute between an Orthodox missionary and a sectarian. The Orthodox missionary out-argued his interlocutor to the triumph and joy of the Orthodox listeners. But,” says the narrator, “I left with the most difficult feeling.” Operated with texts Holy Scripture both opponents and hit each other on the head with texts like sticks. With some kind of hostility, with bitterness, with unkind notes. It was just a struggle. It’s not a Christian, brotherly discussion of a controversial issue with the goal of finding out the truth and revealing it to those who are in error, but rather the desire to win at all costs, and that’s why it turned out to be a formal action movie. And it is unknown what would have happened, the narrator notes, if the sectarian had been more accustomed to argument, more well-read, more powerful in dialectics and logic. It is unknown what else would have happened. But you need the interlocutor to whom you are explaining to feel that light and warmth are coming to him from the Orthodox Church.”
And I will say one more thing to Orthodox pastors. Especially now, my soul hurts for young people who are under the winds of a variety of anti-church, anti-religious, anti-moral influences. From everywhere it hits the young soul like a hurricane. What can be opposed to this? Not just head training. But it is necessary for children, youth, youth to feel the warmth and light around the Church. There are such youth, we have them here, they exist everywhere where our Church has its hearths and nests. If young people feel warmth and light around the Church, they are already ours. But, alas, there is very little of it. And pastors need to take care to attract young people and not just logically prove something to them, but so that the young blossoming soul, I repeat, feels comfortable around the Church, feels at home, feels that light and warmth that the Orthodox faith and the Church spread around themselves. And when the young soul feels this, I repeat, it is ours, because the one who has tasted the bitter sweet will not want it.
Preface and publication
The remains of Bishop Philaret were scheduled to be transferred from the tomb under the altar of the cemetery Assumption Church at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville to a new tomb behind the cathedral monastery church. In this regard, in order to prepare for the transfer, it was decided to open the tomb. On November 10, the Archbishop of Syracuse and Trinity Laurus, together with the clergy of the monastery, celebrated a memorial service in the tomb; The coffin of Vladyka Philaret was placed in the middle of the room and opened. The relics of the Lord turned out to be completely incorruptible and were light in color; The skin, beard and hair are completely preserved. The Vladyka’s vestment, the Gospel, the letter with the prayer of permission, the cross and the air that covered the face of the deceased were completely intact. Even the white fabric with which the body was covered on top retained its dazzling whiteness, which greatly surprised the funeral service worker who was present at the opening of the coffin, who said that this fabric should have become completely black after three years in the coffin... It is noteworthy that the metal clasps of the coffin were in the tomb, the Gospels crumbled to dust when touched - they were completely rusty, this indicates that the tomb was very damp; and with such dampness, nothing was damaged except these fasteners! Truly, this was a clear miracle of God.
The news of the incorruption of the relics of Vladika Philaret quickly spread throughout the world. However, judging by subsequent events, not everyone was happy about this; the reaction of the archbishop was rather restrained. Lavra... (the reason for this is that the religious positions of Archbishop Laurus and St. Philaret, in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate, are completely opposite. Archbishop Laurus recognizes that the MP is the Mother Church and in every possible way seeks union with her; and St. Philaret calls the MP - false church. We can see the position of St. Philaret by reading his letters.
The coffin with the relics of St. Philaret was buried again. On the eve of the reburial of the relics, on November 20 at the beginning of the fourth hour of the day, the coffin of the Saint was delivered from the Assumption Church to the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the monastery by car. The service of requiem was led by the archbishop. Laurel, served by about 20 clergy. None of the other ROCOR hierarchs came to the transfer of the relics of St. Philaret. After the funeral service, the coffin with the body of Vladika Philaret was placed against the side wall of the temple. The next day, November 21, Archbishop. Laurus led the cathedral service. About 400 people gathered in the overcrowded church; those present were very embarrassed and upset that both during the memorial service, and during the All-Night Vigil and Liturgy, the coffin with the relics of St. Philaret remained sealed. Despite numerous requests from clergy and laity who specially came to Jordanville to venerate the relics of St. Philaret, Archbishop. Laurus refused to open the coffin. He also strictly forbade making photocopies of existing photographs of the Lord’s incorruptible relics and even showing them to anyone. Then the coffin with the relics of St. Philaret was carried in a procession around the Holy Trinity Cathedral and carried into the tomb and buried.
But! no matter how people try to bury the Truth, you cannot bury it. This is how in our time people who have become infected with the spirit of this world act with saints that are disliked by the world.
Hierarch Father Philaret, pray to God for us.
Letters from Metropolitan Philareta.
1. About church divisions
Saint Basil the Great is a strict, demanding archpastor with a firm hand, an inspired defender and guardian of church truth and church rules. However, when it came to those who fell into schism and came again, the strict Saint opened the gates to the church fence for them, softening in every possible way the requirements that were presented to those wishing to return. Basil the Great softened all the strictures so that those who were lost would come home.
But his tone changes decisively when the breakaways persist and remain in the same position. And then St. Vasily says: “A schism that continues for a long time and stubbornly must be looked at as approaching a real heresy, and therefore such schismatics must be treated as heretics, i.e. do not enter into any communication with them.” But the judgment of St. John Chrysostom: “Nothing offends God more than the division of the Church. Even though you have done a thousand good deeds, you are no less subject to condemnation than those who tormented the Body of Christ. If we tear apart the integrity of the Church, even the blood of martyrdom cannot atone for such a sin. What I have said is directed against those who indiscriminately pester people who are separating from the Church.” And how hard and sorrowful it can be when you hear: “I go to any church. It doesn’t matter that the bishops and priests don’t get along there, but I don’t care - God is One, the Church is One.” But look what Chrysostom says: “What I have said is directed against those who indiscriminately pester people who are separating from the Church. If these separated ones contain dogmas that are contrary to us, i.e. distorted the faith itself, it is clear that therefore one should no longer have communication with them.” But further: they say that they teach the same way as we do, everything is common, just like ours, everything is correct. “But if they think the same as us, then even more should avoid them!” - said Chrysostom. Why is that? Because this is a disease of lust.
This was the case, for example, in both of our schisms: Met. Plato and Met. Eulogius did not want to submit to the Synod of Bishops. They say that they have the same faith and are as Orthodox in their faith as we are. If so, then why are they not with us? There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one truth - not two graces, not two truths: if it is good with them, then it is bad with us; and if we are good, then they are bad. There are no two graces; Christ did not divide the Church. If they moved away from us, broke away, considering us wrong, then one of two things: either they, separating from us, lost grace - they remained without it or took it away from us, then we are without grace. How can people not understand this? It’s as if the service is the same, as if it’s the same, and they say: “But God is One, we don’t care: here the service is the same as there.” Once upon a time, someone said to a priest in Harbin: “Father, why don’t I go? They serve there, just like ours, I will pray there too, there are absolutely the same prayers and rites and everything in general.” And the priest took two fifty kopecks (two coins of 50 kopecks) from his pocket and said: “Look, they are exactly the same, but one is real and the other is fake. Well, in your opinion, if a man learns to read and write, builds a church himself, sews vestments himself and serves in the same way as they serve here, does that mean he is a legitimate priest? So, will there be real prayers, real sacraments?” So Chrysostom says: “If we are good, then they are bad, and if they are good, then we are bad.”
You probably read in the newspapers the answer of Metropolitan. Irenea to our appeal. This is a response to the Council’s appeal to the American Metropolis. Previously, the American Metropolis still called itself Russian, but now they are abandoning this. They themselves say that “we are NOT part of the Russian Church.” Metropolitan Irenaeus writes that we have different paths, we have too many disagreements, but we just need to pray together, that the spirit of Christian love calls us to serve together, to pray together. When I read all these pompous phrases, it was very difficult and unpleasant - after all, we really know what is there, and they are trying to perch themselves in a position that is very advantageous for themselves. We are talking about the real state of affairs. But there is still too significant a disagreement for it to be possible to suddenly unite so quickly without eliminating all these differences of opinion! And they say: let differences of opinion remain differences of opinion, but let’s pray and serve together - we are of the same faith! This undoubtedly suits many people, not among the faithful children of our Church Abroad, because they understand perfectly well what is going on here, but among the silent majority.
Having received our response, in which we essentially insist on our previous proposal to meet and talk about the disagreement on the merits, Metropolitan. Irenaeus wrote to me like this:
“Your letter of January 31 clearly shows that our proposal to restore, first of all, prayerful communication and thereby begin to eliminate church divisions, is rejected by you. By rejecting it, you, however, place responsibility for it on us. You call my letter to you “sharply polemical” and in itself testifies to how little ground has yet been prepared for unity. Meanwhile, my entire letter boiled down to a call and proposal to make rapprochement; start not with polemics, but with prayer and acquiring God’s gracious help. Let me remind you of my words: “Our division, caused by the tragic turmoil of our era, does not justify breaks in prayer and sacrament, and therefore it is in the unity and sacrament that unite us with Christ and in Him with each other that we see the only way of mutual understanding and reconciliation." There is only one way out: in returning to that basic unity, the unity in Christ in whom we believe, the liberating, regenerating power and joy of joint prayer is not disrupted by all this diversity. Any other path, any other beginning will in fact be a continuation of the old path and will only lead to a worse aggravation of our differences.”
And in the sacred canons, which he here bypasses with chaste modesty, it is said that if you pray with wrong-minded people, you will be excommunicated from the Church. But this is not said. He continues further:
“Your Eminence (addressing me), do you really, in good conscience, perceive these words as filled with “sharply polemical”? And if so, what will we talk about in this atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust? How can we condemn others for “living a lie” if, first of all, we do not restore simple truth within ourselves and abandon crooked paths? And how, finally, will we come to this, if not by prayer, by meeting each other in Christ? In your initial Address to us, we heard a determination to take a truly new step: searching, looking for new paths. And they responded to this with complete truth and readiness with a double proposal to begin with the healing of the most terrible and tempting wound for all - the separation of brothers by faith, by spirit, by blood - at the Throne of God. For this holy work, no preliminary clarification is needed; on the contrary, only this, only this meeting in Christ and thereby the unity of the Universal Church will take further steps!
Steps along a new path, and not painfully trampling everything in the same place. In a hopeless dead end."
When I was reading, I remember, in the end, I figured out: all the time there were pompous phrases about how good it is when we are together and close and start from there. And he stubbornly refuses to admit that he wants to start where he ends. This is what was written in the newspapers. I answer him:
“Your Eminence, our newspaper correspondence has reached a dead end, and there is no point in continuing it, but I consider it necessary to respond to your last letter. Appealing to my conscience, you cite an excerpt from your previous letter and ask where in this excerpt I see “pointed polemicism”? But I don’t see him in this excerpt. After all, you didn’t give your entire letter, but there are completely different expressions there. Stubbornly avoiding the main question dividing us, what? Yes, you know it yourself. You persistently call for prayerful communication. Needless to say: it would be a great joy to resume such communication! But you can start with it only when there is a disagreement of a personal nature, here the matter is clear: “Peace and don’t be angry anymore!” And regarding fundamental disagreements, according to the words of the Church: “Let us love one another and confess that we are UNITED,” it is necessary to first achieve such unanimity, and only when it is achieved, the joy of this achievement is crowned with joint prayer. Remember the historical meeting of hierarchs: Met. Eulogia, Metropolitan Theophilus, Met. Anastasia, bishop Demetrius precisely on issues of church disagreements: they did not begin their meeting, but ended with a joint ministry. And in general, in the history of the Church, joint ministry without unanimity has never happened. This is a purely ecumenical modern invention. Love, understood according to ecumenical wisdom, opens its loving arms wide to everyone. But according to the editor’s apt and profound remark, “”, Orthodox Rus' this love in its embrace of love is ready to strangle true Orthodoxy to death.
When I talked about this matter with the wise and peace-loving Bishop Andrei, Archbishop. Rocklandsky, he spoke about this so figuratively and so convincingly that I want to bring this statement of his to you, without any abbreviation. Bishop Andrei says: “I remember an incident from the life of Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg. She was especially popular in the merchant world. Merchants noticed that each visit to the Blessed One brought them good luck in trade. The same thing happened with Fr. John of Kronstadt, when he came to the merchants and took something, God sent him good luck. Once, in one trading place, merchants managed to get from one rich estate several different varieties of the best fragrant honey. There was linden honey, buckwheat honey and other flowers. Each had its own special taste and fragrance. And when the merchants mixed all these varieties in one large barrel, the result was such a fragrance, such a taste that one could not even dream of. Buyers bought honey in great demand, sparing no expense. And suddenly, a blzh appeared. Ksenia: “Don’t take it, don’t take it,” she shouted, “you can’t eat this honey, it smells like dead meat!” And she began to drive away customers. “Are you, mother, crazy? Don't bother us, look how much profit we have! How can you prove that this honey cannot be eaten?” “Here I’ll prove it!” - said the Blessed One, leaned on the barrel and knocked it over. While the honey flowed onto the pavement, it gave off a fragrance. And when all the honey flowed out, everyone screamed in horror and jumped away: at the bottom of the barrel lay a huge dead rat. Even those who bought this honey at an expensive price and carried it in jars abandoned it and ran away. Why,” continues the Vladyka, “did I remember this incident? Why am I bringing it now, I will readily answer: the other day an American, interested in Orthodoxy and having visited all the Orthodox Churches - both in the Soviet Union and here in America, asked me: why am I and a whole group of Russians Orthodox people We do not participate in the reception of the Patriarchal delegation and, in general, we are somehow alienated from everything connected with church life in the Soviet Union, and even here in America we shy away from those Orthodox groups that are in one way or another connected with the Patriarchate. What's the matter? Are the dogmas different, or the sacraments different, or the worship different? “I thought,” says the Bishop, “and answered: “No, that’s not the point: the faith is the same and the services are the same. The Orthodox faith, in itself, smells like fragrant honey where it is not proclaimed. But if this fragrant honey were poured into a barrel, at the bottom of which there was a dead rat, would you want to taste this honey? He looked at me with horror and said: “Of course not!” “So we too,” I answered him, “are alienated from everything connected with communism. Communism for us is like a dead rat at the bottom of a barrel. And if they filled this barrel to the very brim with the best aromatic honey - no! We don't want this honey! Honey itself is beautiful, but it contains cadaveric poison and stench.” My interlocutor silently nodded his head - he understood.”
Next comes my speech: “ Main question, the question that divides us, the question of the Soviet hierarchy, which you stubbornly keep silent about. The Church Abroad will only recognize her as the legitimate head of the suffering Russian Church when she, with all decisiveness, rejects the shameful, terrible declaration of Metropolitan. Sergius, will leave his destructive path and take the path of church truth, fearlessly and openly defending it. The shame must be washed away. While this is not the case, she is under the omophorion of the atheistic government, not daring to take a single step without its “blessing,” especially in her actions abroad - this is clear to the child.
And at the end of this letter, taking your example, I ask you: Do you, according to your bishop’s conscience, consider the KGB ministers, dressed in robes and hoods, to really be the true spiritual leaders and leaders of the Russian Church? Don't you see that in the Soviet organization with which you have associated yourself, there is a dead rat lying at the bottom? And if you don’t see this, or don’t want to see it, if you prefer, as they say in the Gospel, to “close your eyes and plug your ears” in order to somehow isolate yourself from the sad reality, then, of course, further negotiations will be completely pointless: neither about unification Moreover, joint service is out of the question.
2. Letter to the Mother Superior
Your Reverence, I am writing this letter on the way - on the steamer “Oriana”, which is sailing to Australia. The ship is quite large, 42,000 tons (about the size of the Titanic) and quite well equipped. Today is Sunday. In the morning my companion Fr. prot. Konstantin served the liturgy in the cabin, and I received communion. The same thing happened yesterday, on the day of the Feast of the Entry of the Blessed Virgin Mary, because... It was not possible to serve either on the very day of this Holiday or on its second day - there was persistent motion. But since Thursday the ocean has calmed down, and we are sailing calmly.
You probably remember that not on my last visit to the Monastery, but on the penultimate one, you and I had something of a dispute over the fact that the Monastery accepts into its temple those who are essentially followers, members of the b. exarchate, and not the Church Abroad. And vice versa - many of our spiritual children constantly visit the Parisians and there they confess and “take communion”...
You pointed out that the Monastery does this for missionary purposes, in order to give the lost the opportunity to pray and be sanctified by the sacraments in a real Orthodox church. And to this I will say: this may well be the case, just as the messengers of St. Prince Vladimir visited the Greek Orthodox Church. But... Big “but”! The prince's ambassadors reported to him about the beauty of the Orthodox faith - and the result was that both they and the Prince himself did not remain in their delusion, but replaced paganism with Christianity. And it seems clear to me that correct “missionary work” will be in the Monastery only when the Monastery, while allowing “Them” to visit the temple, will, however, allow them to the sacraments only under condition, that having accepted the sacrament from us, they will refuse the “sacraments” performed on the “Rue Daru” and in general in the churches of the exarchate.
Otherwise, what happens?! It turns out that everything is fine with them, and they have no need to change or fix anything. And we, by admitting them to the sacraments and not demanding unity and constancy in this regard, affirm them even more firmly in the fact that everything is correct with them, and their path is the real and correct path.
At the Third All-Diaspora Council there were speeches that we should unite with both the Parisians and the American false autocephalists - “ in the spirit of love“. Love, you see, should unite us and there is no need to emphasize our differences. But these conversations fell silent when I quoted the words of one of the saints. fathers, who says: if we, supposedly in the name of love, so as not to disturb our neighbors, hush up their errors and not explain to them that they are on the wrong path, then this not love, A hatred! Will the one who, seeing a blind man walking towards an abyss, do the right thing and does not tell him about it, so as not to “bother” him?! Is this love?
At the last Council of Bishops, Vladyka A. made a speech in this spirit... He said: as for Paris, here we have a common flock (that is, we and the exarchate - M.F.), we equally serve the same Orthodox people...
Here I could not resist and burst into speech... Firstly, I pointed out that we really have a place where we have a common flock with other ministers of the Orthodox Church. This is Boston. Our parishes are there and there is the monastery of Fr. archim. Panteleimon. He has Greek rules and regulations. But believers go back and forth equally, because this monastery is under our jurisdiction, is absolutely Orthodox and has our Orthodox “spirit,” despite the difference in rules and regulations. And to this I added: but tell me: what kind of “common flock” can I have with the Parisians, when their head, the archbishop. George, passing by our Church-Monument in Brussels, spits in its direction with the words - “Oh, Karlovac infection!...”
Our people who were present there saw and heard this... But the exarchate spits not only on our churches, but also on the church charter and canons. Marriages are celebrated there on Saturdays and generally whenever they want, as long as they pay the money; the funeral service was held there unbaptized a Jew - as our “foreigners” indignantly informed us about this... What kind of “common flock” can there be here and what can we have in common with them? When I was serving in Brussels on a day of mourning, a woman approached the Holy Chalice. I said: ask - did she confess? - Answer: “No!” - You cannot take communion. - And she began to make noise - what is this, you just need to have a clear conscience, etc... Without entering into any arguments with her, I just thought: “Ugh, an exarchate infection...”. She was from the “Parisians”.
I am accused of being too strict and of “fanaticism.” But I have sufficient grounds to stand by my point of view, for I have great authorities behind me, both ancient and modern.
I'll start with the ancients. First of all, of course, is it in the spirit of the current “condescension” towards those who have broken away that the words were spoken: “If he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector”? We know who said these words. Who dares to contradict Him?..
Let's turn to the greats. Here is St. Gregory the Theologian is the embodiment of meekness and pure Christian love for everyone, and, in particular, for the lost. However, he directly says that not all peace needs to be treasured and not all division needs to be feared. “There is a hateful world and there is a good and praiseworthy division,” says St. Grigory. And the context of these words clearly indicates that he means those who broke away - those who went into schism.
Basil the Great. Strict more than many. But we know that when there was talk about the schism that had just begun, the saint stood in a position of maximum condescension, and in order to make it easier for those who had broken away to return to the fence of the Church, he tried in every possible way to ensure that they were presented with the most minimal requirements, such as conditions return. - But how abruptly his position changes when he talks about a persistent, ongoing split. “Such a split”- says St. Vasily is already like a heresy in everything, and such schismatics must be treated as heretics, not allowing any communication with them.”
Strictly and categorically. But the third of the greats, St., speaks even more strictly and categorically. I. Zlatoust. It’s a pity that I don’t have his wonderful words on hand on the ship, which he said specifically about the schismatics. But I remember them well and will try to convey them as accurately as possible.
Chrysostom begins his speech about the schism by pointing to the ancient testimony of the great saint of God, the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-Bearer. St. Ignatius said that there is no sin worse than that which produces division in the Church, and warned that this sin is so great and terrible that it is not even washed with the blood of a martyr!.. Confirming this from himself, Chrysostom says: “I say this for those who goes to all temples indiscriminately- both ours and the schismatics. If they teach differently than we do, then, of course, you shouldn’t go to them. And if they teach the same as we do, then YOU SHOULD NOT GO TO THEM ANYMORE, for here is the sin of covetousness”...
(Isn’t it the case that Evlogii, of sad memory, broke away and became a schismatic leader because he could not bear the eldership of Metropolitan Anthony?.. Alas, this is so! I remember how my late parent, Vladimir Dimitri, returning from the famous “meeting of four” , with all his usual caution in his reviews, he said with bitterness: “I did not imagine that an Orthodox bishop could be as insincere as this Evlogiy, whom I don’t even want to call Metropolitan Nestor, who, as a bishop.” , received the minutes of the meeting, showed them to Father Nathanael - there were among the words of Vl. Demetrius: “Since the Most Reverend Eulogius speaks directly today. the opposite of that what he said yesterday, and today I am forced to say the opposite and declare my complete disagreement with him”...)
Chrysostom continues: “You (he addresses his interlocutor) say: everything is the same with us, they serve, pray and teach the same way as we do... Well, why aren’t they with us?! One Lord, one faith, one baptism! They broke away - in this case, it could be one of two things: either we are good and they are bad, or they are good and we are bad!”
These clear and categorical words of St. What do fathers mean? Nothing more than an indication that the schism is graceless. Christ is not divided and His grace is one. If you believe in the “grace” of the schism, then you need to either admit that we do not have grace, it was taken away by those who broke away - or admit that there are two graces (and, obviously, two true Churches, since grace is given only in the true Church) .
Continuing to develop his thoughts, St. Chrysostom finally draws his conclusion - inevitable and irresistible: “I said and confirm that schism is as terrible an evil as heresy.” And heresy separates the human soul from the Church, from God - and from salvation.
Here are more voices from ancient times. St. Peter of Alexandria saw the Savior in a torn tunic - the Lord held him with his hands. The saint dared to ask: “Who tore your clothes, Savior?”... The Savior’s sorrowful and angry answer followed: “Aryan the madman - he separated My sheep from Me, which I purchased with My blood”...
The lives of the saints say that St. Gregory once had a revelation - he saw the future Last Judgment of Christ. And at this trial, the Lord called Arius to Himself and menacingly asked him: “Am I not the God-man Christ, equal in Divinity to the Father and the Holy Spirit? How did you reduce My Divinity into a creature and bring this cathedral (followers of Arius) seduced by you to eternal torment?”…
What do these terrible words mean? About the fact that a heretic brings his followers to eternal torment!.. after all, among his followers there were undoubtedly people who believed him, who believed that he was telling them the truth! We have already seen that not according to today's soft-hearted reasoning, but according to the teachings of the saints. fathers, schism is the same terrible evil as heresy - and obviously, its end will be the same. I do not dare to pronounce judgment on the contemporary founder of the schism, Metropolitan. Eulogius, but I fear for his soul, and I fear for everyone who was seduced by him and his successors and drawn into schism. And I do not understand the position on this issue of the late Vladika John, a true servant of God and a man of God. Why didn’t he “dot the i’s” from the very beginning and explain to the Eulogians all the untruths of their path and position?! But precisely because of this, because it was not immediately and clearly said where the truth is and where the untruth is (there cannot be two truths), where is white and where is black, where is light and darkness, which path is correct and which is wrong - there would not be this “inter-jurisdictional confusion”, and the situation would be clear.
The fact that many of the “Orthodox” go to no matter what church, what does it mean? It’s simply about the fact that people don’t value the truth. That’s why they don’t think much about it. “They serve the same, everything is the same - what’s there to be clever about?” Or, as one of the best shepherds abroad, Archpriest Fr., said with bitter irony here in Harbin. John Storozhev (the last confessor of the murdered woman) Royal Family) - “the bells are ringing, the priests are serving, they are singing well - what more do you need?” And the so familiar is added - “God, after all, is one!”...
And if people loved the truth and valued it, would they be satisfied with such indifference?! No and a thousand times no! Their souls would hurt and would not calm down until they saw where the truth is, which can only be one - there cannot be two truths. How right ow. Nektary, when he always insists: there are no “different jurisdictions,” but only there is the Orthodox Church Abroad, and outside it there are schisms and heresies.
Vladyka Anthony, handing over the abbot’s staff to Abbess Pavle, told her: “Be lenient towards everyone, know how to deal with those of little faith and blasphemers. Treat heretics wisely, but never agree that they allegedly have the grace of the Holy Spirit; know that Catholics, Mohammedans and all other heretics are without grace.” - And we have already seen that St. the fathers equate a persistent, ongoing schism with heresy. Hence?..
Quote from the Easter message of Vl. Anthony (Khrapovitsky - ed.) (1934):
“The present time is rich not in feats of piety and confession, but in fraud, lies and deceptions. It is remarkable that several hierarchs and their flocks, mostly Russians, have already fallen away from universal unity and when asked: “how do you believe,” they answer with references to the self-proclaimed heads of every schism in Moscow, America and Western Europe. It is clear that they have lost faith in the unity of the Church throughout the entire universe and do not want to admit it, trying to calmly endure the refusals of the true Church to communicate with them, and imagining that they can save a soul without communicating with it... those who are cut off from Her deprive themselves of hope for salvation, as the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council teach about it, recognizing the renegades as completely graceless, according to the word of Christ - “if he does not listen to the church, then let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector.” Unfortunately, some Orthodox laity, even, alas, many clergy (and hierarchs)- M.F .) subjected themselves to such a graceless state, although while maintaining the appearance of church services and apparent performance of the sacraments“.
Think about the last words of the great Abba: apparent performance of the sacraments … Horrible! But these words of his completely coincide with my conviction of the gracelessness and invalidity of the schismatic sacraments.
And when I quoted these words to Vl. Anthony (Khrapovitsky - ed.) in confirmation of my conviction at the Council - the archpastors accepted this silently, not one objected - Vl. Anthony (Genevsky - ed.). A ow. Philotheus, on behalf of the entire Council, expressed gratitude for such an exceptionally important clarification.
The same St. spoke a lot about this. Basil the Great. - That’s why St. said so. Ignatius the God-Bearer and St. I. Chrysostom about how great and terrible the sin of division in the Church is. For the responsibility of the one who makes such a division falls heavily on the one who makes such a division - the fate of those who depart from the true church path to other paths that lead to destruction. After all, won’t the terrible judgment of God fall on our heads if we do not admonish our lost brothers? It may be objected to me: didn’t the Third All-Diaspora Council address both, the Parisians and the Americans, with a call for peace and unity? Yes, he did, but he didn’t turn at all in the way he needed to - that’s why this call didn’t produce results, or rather, it gave a negative result. I was the fact is that this will be the result. For it was necessary to tell them: you have lost your way and fallen away from the Church - try to return to it! And the appeal made speaks to them as if they were in the Church just like us, on equal rights and position. This is where you should have told them: you are not some “different jurisdictions” - you are just schismatics, and you have no church rights... Come to your senses and come back with repentance!
Probably, such an appeal would only cause an outburst of rage among the leaders of the split (God grant that I’m wrong - but we see their mood). But among their “flock” many, many could think and understand that things were not going well for them, as they realized after serious and convincing explanations from Fr. Gerasima - the late Sandrik Filatyev and many others who broke with the schism.
They might ask me the question: why didn’t I say at the Council that I consider the conversion to be wrong? I would answer: because I saw the mood at the Council and feared an explosion and a possible catastrophe. I was warned that the enemies of the Church want to cause such an explosion - to “blow up” the Cathedral from the inside. Therefore, I had to avoid questions that could cause major aggravations.
I return to the question of heresy and schism. His Beatitude Met. Anthony says: is it possible to deal harshly with heretics, who perhaps sincerely believe in their truth? “You should never idealize heretics,” he answers, “because... the basis of their retreat is not virtue, but the passions and sins of pride, stubbornness and malice.
Severe treatment of heretics, says the Bishop, is useful not only for protecting people from their influence, but also for them themselves, - we have seen that St. the fathers equate stubborn schismatics with heretics. Therefore, is it right to babysit them like this, unfortunately, happens with us? And all this - for the sake of an unkind, false “peace”...
If the Lord brings me to live to see the next Council of Bishops, I will raise this issue head-on at it.
Peace and God's blessing to you. May the Lord and His Most Pure Mother protect you and St. Abode in health and prosperity.
Metropolitan Filaret.
R. s. The letter was written on the ship. But it is sent only on December 14/27, because... I couldn’t send it earlier - the mail was overloaded before “Happy Christmas”...
"Application".
The letter turned out to be quite long. But, after re-reading it, I saw that I did not say everything that I considered necessary to say; and therefore I’m adding this “application”.
You, Mother, probably caught my main idea. I think(I speak, of course, only for myself) that the schismatics - American and Parisian - have no grace, for otherwise it is necessary to allow the absurd existence of several true Churches that do not recognize each other and do not have spiritual communion. This is absurd already because the Divine Founder of the Church said, “I will build My Church,” and not “My Churches.” I was led to this conviction by the words of the ancients c centuries fathers (cited by me), as well as the words of Abba Anthony about the apparent performance of the sacraments by those who have broken away from the true Church. And I do not believe so much in the grace of schismatic “manipulations” that if I were dying and needed parting words, I would not accept it either from the “Parisian” or from the American false autocephalist, so that instead CV. There is no secret in swallowing a piece of bread with wine.
But I also forgot to emphasize that due to this situation, the saddest phenomenon must be considered that and our foreigners go to schismatic temples- “confess” and “take communion” there. - What take communion? If it is the Holy Mysteries, then it means that we do not have the Holy Mysteries, as Chrysostom accurately explained. And if we DO have the Holy Sacraments, they are not there and these poor people go there in vain. “Apparent” sacraments, according to Abba Anthony’s definition, are what are presented trusting people ministers of schism.”
I understand perfectly well what confusion would be brought into the lives of Russian people who believe in the exarchate and false autocephaly, what I wrote here, if it were published. But would it be better if we were silent about all this and consoled ourselves with “peace and silence,” as Vl. Anthony (Genevsky - ed.)..?
After all, people are on a spiritually false road! This is scary!
3. Letter to Priest Viktor Potapov
Father Victor!
I’ve been meaning to write you a few words for a long time, but somehow “I never got around to it.” But I finally got myself together and am writing.
Even when I was in Australia, when I began to receive information from America that there were protests, demonstrations and even prayer services in front of the Soviet consulate, I became very alarmed and regretted that I was not here, since I decided would have opposed a lot of what happened. In particular, a prayer service in such a place. Did they not sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land? Why was it necessary to bring out the sacred object of church prayer - in front of the rabid servants of the Antichrist? Was it really impossible to pray in the temple?
I must frankly say that I am always annoyed when I hear about “protests”, “demonstrations”, etc. In the USSR, life is ruled by the one (with horns) who fears only Christ and the Cross and is not afraid of anything else in the world. And he just laughs at the protests and demonstrations. "Public opinion"? The Antichrist authorities don’t care about him from the highest shelf! They wanted to take Czechoslovakia - and they took it, not paying attention to the noise that arose. They wanted to enter Afghanistan - and they entered, not paying attention to the protests and threats of various Carters and companies. All attempts to create in the so-called free world public opinion in favor of those who suffer from communism - are powerless and fruitless, since the free world stubbornly closes its eyes and is like an ostrich, which hides its head under its wing and thinks that it is not visible...
With bewilderment, I read in the newspaper how one journalist approvingly quoted your words: “The priest Viktor Potapov is right when he writes: Russia is rising from the dead! We must believe in this, for we believe in Christ the Savior, Risen from the dead.”
I can’t understand what the connection is between one and the other?.. Personally, I believe in the Resurrection of Christ - for me this is the most precious thing in the world. But I don’t see at all why I should believe that Russia is “resurrected”? I hope that she will really be resurrected when there is an almighty call from God. But at present, not only do I not share your enthusiasm, but I am very worried about the Russian people. The lies and emptiness of atheism are clear to him. But, alas, it is not true Orthodoxy that is spreading there. There, under the guise of Orthodoxy, the Russian people are presented with Bulgakovism, Berdyaevism and other nonsense of the Eulogian schism; Sects flourish there—Baptism and so on. The official Church preaches cooperation with the atheistic authorities, praising it in every possible way. The True Orthodox Church has gone into the catacombs - hidden from the eyes of the people... Is this a “revival of Orthodoxy”?.. Are you taking too much upon yourself, proclaiming to the whole world that Orthodoxy is being revived in Russia? May God grant that the Truth will overcome all errors and triumph over them. But it is too early to talk about this, since the influence of anti-Orthodox principles there is still too strong. Not to mention the fact that the Antichrist Soviet government, as long as it rules Russia, will never allow the triumph of Orthodoxy - it is not without reason that true Orthodoxy hid in the catacombs and is cruelly persecuted.
A few words about the tragedy of poor Fr. D. Dudko.
Even at the very beginning of his activity, when his name began to be mentioned more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, his members, bishops, joined this in the Synod; I, writing these lines, immediately stood aside and warned my brothers that a catastrophe could happen here. Why? Because in the USSR, according to the exact definition of Fr. archim. Constantine, now - Satanocracy. There rules the one whom the Savior called a liar and the father of lies. This lie reigns there. Therefore, nothing that happens there can be trusted. Any seemingly spiritually gratifying fact can turn out to be a fake, a forgery, a provocation.
Why did this disaster happen to Fr. Dimitri? Let us assume the best, not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of his convictions, but accepting the sad fact - that he could not stand it and “broke” - capitulated to the enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he showed both courage and boldness, and suddenly - such an inglorious end. Why?!
Because his activities took place OUTSIDE THE TRUE CHURCH...
What is the “Soviet Church”? O. archim. Konstantin spoke a lot and persistently about the fact that the most terrible thing that the atheistic government has done in Russia is the emergence of the “Soviet Church,” which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church, driving the Orthodox Church into catacombs and concentration camps.
This false church is twice anathematized . His Holiness Patr. Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Council anathematized the communists and all their collaborators. This formidable anathema has not yet been lifted and remains in force, since it can only be lifted by an All-Russian Church Council, like the canonical highest church authority. And a terrible thing happened in 1927, when the head of the church, Metropolitan. Sergius, with his shameful apostasy declaration, subjugated the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and announced cooperation with them. And the expression of the pre-confession prayer came true in the most precise sense: “I will fall under my anathema!” For in 1918 the Church anathematized all co-workers of communism, and in 1927 it itself entered the company of these co-workers and began to praise the red godless power - to praise the red beast of which the Apocalypse speaks.
This is not enough. When Met. Sergius made public his criminal declaration - the faithful children immediately separated from the Soviet Church and created Catacomb Church. And she, in turn, anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ.
And so, in this church of the evil ones, the activity of Fr. Dimitri Dudko, who directly stated in the press that he did not break with the Soviet church and remained in it. If his spiritual eyes had been opened, and he had seen the true nature of the official church, he would probably have found the courage to say: “I have hated the church of the wicked, and I will not sit with the wicked.” I am breaking with the company of those who oppose God and leaving the Soviet church. Then - he would become our own - his courage would destroy the barrier that inevitably stands between us due to the fact that the Council accepted the will of Metropolitan. Anastasia. And this will states that one should not have any communication with advisers, not only prayerful, but also everyday. But, since Fr. Dimitri would have refused to remain in the Soviet false church and would have left its membership - the obstacles would no longer apply to him.
I remember one wonderful incident - straight wonderful help God's blessing to those who are faithful to the end. A group of nuns who belonged to the Catacomb Church were driven to Solovki. The security officers told them: get a job today, and tomorrow you will go to such and such a job. But we received an unexpected answer: we won’t go and we won’t work.
Are you crazy? Do you know what will happen to you? - the security officers shouted. The calm answer of people who are not afraid of anything in their loyalty: what will happen will happen - and what will happen is what God wants, and not you, the executioners and criminals.
You can do whatever you want to us - starve, torture, hang, shoot, burn. But we warn you once and for all: we, the servants of the Antichrist, do not recognize you as the legitimate authority and will never carry out your orders!..
Enraged security officers drove the nuns to the “hill of death” in the morning. This was the name of a high hill on which an icy wind always blew. In this wind, a person froze to death within a quarter of an hour. The nuns, dressed in their old duckweeds, were led up this hill by Red Army soldiers in sheepskin coats. The nuns walk cheerful, joyful and sing psalms and prayers. The soldiers put them on the top of the hill and went down. They hear them continue their singing. Half an hour, an hour, two, more - you can still hear singing from above. Evening came. The guards approach the nuns - they are alive, unharmed and continue chanting prayers. The surprised soldiers led them home - to the camp. The news of this immediately spread throughout the camp. And when the next day the guards were changed and the same thing happened again, the camp authorities were confused and left the nuns alone...
Isn't this a victory? This is what loyalty to death means - as the wonderful words of the Apocalypse say: “Be faithful to death and I will give you the crown of life.” And in this case - an obvious miracle, as it was with the three youths in the cave of Babylon, only there was the deadly element of fire, and here the deadly, disastrous cold. This is how the Lord rewards faithfulness!
And here is my deep conviction: if the entire multimillion-dollar mass of Russian people had shown such loyalty as these nuns and refused to obey the robbers who had descended on the Russian people, communism would have collapsed instantly, for the people would have received the help of God that saved the miraculous in the image of nuns going to certain death. And as long as the people recognize this power and obey it, even with curses in their souls, this power remains in place.
Of course, the nuns, like the ancient martyrs, were strengthened by the power of God; without her help they would not have survived. But their feat was accomplished in the true Church, full of grace and Truth. For the true Church, according to the apostolic teaching, is the Body of Christ - the Lord abides in it and heads it as its Divine Head.
Will anyone dare to assert that the Lord and His grace dwell in the church of the wicked, which praises His demonic enemies and collaborates with them, which for this is under a double anathema, as stated above? Can there be grace for a church that has united with the atheists?! The answer is clear!
Saint Theophan the Recluse once warned that a terrible time was approaching, when before people there would be the appearance of church splendor - solemn services, church rites, and so on - but inside there would be complete betrayal of the Spirit of Christ. Isn't this what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs, metropolitans, “the entire priestly and monastic rank” - and at the same time an alliance with the atheists, that is, a clear betrayal of Christ.
Fr. also belonged to this company. Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere religious feeling forced him to preach about God and disagree with many ugly phenomena in the life of Russian people. But for him, Pimen was, probably, and now is, the spiritual head of the Soviet hierarchy, while for us this is not at all the case: for the Council of 1971 made a decision: on the basis of such and such canonical rules, consider the election of Pimen illegal and invalid, and all his orders and decrees are considered to have no force or significance.
How difficult is the situation of poor Fr. Dimitri! What should he do? Continue pastoral work? What will he say to believers? Say the same thing he said before his “repentance”? But he renounced this! Saying the opposite? But they believed him then when he preached what won him the trust and respect of believers, and now - how will he look them in the eyes?.. One girl rightly said that there is a way out for him - to repent of what he has done now. But for this he needs to come out of the church of the evil ones into the true Church and bring repentance there. But for this, the Red government will undoubtedly deal with him with extreme malice and cruelty. Of course, having transferred to the true Church, he will move into the realm of Divine grace and power, which can strengthen him in the same way as it strengthened the catacomb nuns. God grant that he finds the true and saving path.
I would also like to note this: the Catacomb Church in Russia treats with love and full confidence to the Church Abroad. But one thing is incomprehensible to the catacombs - it is not clear why our Church, knowing with certainty that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless accepts clergy from the Soviet Church in their existing rank, without re-ordaining them as already having grace. After all, both the clergy and the flock receive grace from the hierarchy - and if it betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, then where does the clergy get grace from? This is what the catacombs ask.
The answer to this is simple. The Church has the power in certain cases to apply the principle of so-called oikonomia - leniency. Also St. Basil the Great said that in order not to alienate many from the Church, it is necessary to sometimes allow leniency and not apply church rules with all severity. When our Church accepted Catholic clergy “in their existing rank,” without ordaining them, it acted according to this principle. And Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky - ed.), explaining this issue, pointed out that the external form - successive ordination from apostolic times - is available to Catholics, but the lost one Catholic Church Those who join receive grace from the fullness of grace inherent in the Orthodox Church at the moment of their joining. “The form is filled with content,” says owner. Anthony.
In exactly the same way, by accepting the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of oikonomia. And we accept clergy from Moscow not as having grace, but as having received it in the very joining. But we, of course, cannot recognize the church of the evil ones as the bearer and guardian of grace. For outside of Orthodoxy there is NO grace, and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.
At the end of this long letter, I want to point something out to you, Father Victor. The Council of Bishops accepted for guidance and execution the will of Metropolitan. Anastasia, in which the late First Hierarch bequeathed to us not to have any communication with the Soviet Church, not only prayerful, but also everyday. On what basis did you and other clergy have direct communication with Fr. D. Dudko? They wrote him letters and so on. No matter how sincere a person you consider him to be, can your personal opinion abolish the rule accepted by the Church? Now, if only Fr. Dudko said: I am breaking with the official church and leaving it - then you could join him in live communication. Without this, your actions are a violation of church discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not answer him - although I could have answered a lot... By the way, on what basis did you even earlier decide to commemorate the bishop of the Soviet church at the great entrance? Who gave you this right, which bishop - who, how, where, when?.. Be careful, my kind and diligent, but too impetuous co-servant!