Vl. Agafangel Wishes R-Splits To Return

From Daily Courier Dec. 31st, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Machine Translation:

Metropolitan of ROCOR Agafangel - Rule of faith and way of gentleness.

I appeal to those members of ROCOR who read this magazine.

Please do not be tempted by the fact that I, in the opinion of some expressed in this and other journals, are inferior in some positions and traditions of the ROCOR.

This is not so - I believe that our Church Abroad is part of the Local Russian Church, which has its origins from the beginning of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy. Apostles. And in this we can be no doubt.

But I also find it useful and necessary to conduct a dialogue with those who had previously been in the Church, but then walked away from it. Among these people there are many who can hear and see. The Lord told us that he came not to the righteous, but sinners, and reproached him for, because He associated with sinners.

So I ask you not tempted by the faithful children, but always remember that our Church of the Holy Spirit operates through the catholicity, and no decision regarding our common life and faith, can not be taken from us in addition to the church council and without taking into account the views of all our faithful children .

There Is None That Watcheth Out For My Soul

This is Archbishop Chrysostomos' answer to some of Dr. Moss' criticism. It can help the super-correct to understand us and helps to explain the Royal Path.

Evlogeite. As usual, [Dr. Moss' writing is] externally compelling and intelligent, and not without some valid points (albeit validity in a typically curious and questionable context). From under the covers of theology and history, I must point out that there peep the following:

1) I have heard this refrain too often: "How dare the Church act without doing what I want. It must do so because it is motivated to reject the Royal Priesthood." Unfortunately, the idea of universalism in the priesthood deteriorates into Protestant-like chaos, when abused. It is as dangerous as it is essential and important. When Father Florovsky was asked about his claim that the people could even remove a Bishop, for example, he quickly said: "Only in times of intense piety and not without the final approval of the Church." This is a very important rejoinder.

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

6) Sectarian thinking is ultimately not compatible with order and with patience and trust in the Church. Ad hoc lay committees do not have the approbation of the Church. The Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must act in a synod to adjudicate matters in the end. They constitute the authority of the Church.

That there are false synods and true ones has never impeded us from waiting for God's action. We have the right to protest, to cut ourselves off temporarily, and to organize a temporary ecclesiastical structure; however, we do not have the right to assume we that WE are the whole Church, whether in the name of the Royal Priesthood or some tiny group of people with putative "universal jurisdiction."

Our egos have to suffer, we must act humbly, and we must not make of a short time, in the scheme of things ecclesiastical, an irreversible ill in the Church and create an "Orthodoxy" of our liking and according to an authority that we do not have, whether as laymen or Churchmen.

And let me ask where, in any of this, one finds love for those in error and an expressed desire to restore them? This is all talk about "those who are correct" at the cost of those who are ill, whom these same super-correct radicals disdain. What is missing here is Christianity.

If I am in heresy for writing any of this, so, then, must be many of the great Fathers of the Church. Ego and the desire for power do not trump the power of the Church, the primacy of love, and God, however. So, I am not a heretic.

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC


Further to the comments by Dr. Moss
-----------------------------------
An exchange with Bishop Ambrose of Methone


Theophilestate. Evlogeite. Chronia polla kai kalo to neon etos me to neo!
------

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

But his Synod has declared this - otherwise he would not be with them.

------
Yes, you are quite correct. This is true (even if his present affiliation is one of many over the years). However, I am speaking of a General Synod, not an administrative body of a local kind, the authority of which to declare the majority of Orthodox in the world heretical is at the very least open to serious theological question.

But then, if a such a local synod of Bishops considers itself to constitute THE CHURCH and the only competent body to judge the Orthodox world, as his apparently does, perhaps it and its few tens of thousands of followers also consider themselves to constitute a Standing Oecumenical Synod Urbi et Orbi (for Athens and the Whole World): a kind of collegial papacy. If so, they have clearly deviated from collegiality as it has always typified by Orthodox ecclesiology.

I may indeed be in error. However, my view is obviously shared by others, as this kind of sectarian extremism loses ground daily among balanced individuals. Of course, the extremists would claim some eschatological explanation for this, and I would respond again with my fears of their sectarianism.

God, the grave, and history, I suspect, will settle these matters.
------


3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

This is a valuable point.

------
I think that it is very important. Imagine if, considering ecumenism a monolithic thing, we were to go back in history and begin condemning anyone who associated with it either naively or in its more innocent and mild form, when it was not claiming an ecclesial character (a very significant point). We would have to condemn, among others, St. Nikolai (Velimirovich), a good deal of the pre-Soviet Russian Hierarchy, Father Georges Florovsky, et alii. Of course, while the thought shocks me (condemning Saints and eminent theological voices), perhaps the extremists would find no difficulty in doing that. If so, extremism is not their only problem.

When I mention this, I am always told, "Well, can heresy be half-heresy or can error be less than error?" I always smile, thinking that there really is some great value in reading the Fathers and history and in listening to those enlightened by God and not their personal opinions and mere logic (indeed, logic that is not always logic, in fact). I wonder what the extremists would do with "semi-Arianism"? And what about St. Basil's nuanced First Canon and its attention to degrees of heresy, applying economy in less severe cases of heresy and not in more severe instances? And how about St. Nicodemos who suggests using exactitude in applying the Canons in one case and economy in another, i.e., to those ailing in heresy and those dead in heresy?

As for error, do not the Canons themselves make very acute distinctions between the forms that certain sins take, some leading to dire consequences, others considered less debilitating? (In the case of sins of the flesh, the distinctions are VERY literal and very precise!) And does not the First-Second Synod use medical terminology to point out that even serious offenses "that have brought blasphemy on the name of Christ" should be subjected to "proper medical treatment," giving whatever strength we can to those who have gone astray by their rehabilitation? In other words, is it not the case that some errors can be treated and that we leave the errant to judgment only after trying to correct them?

The extremists would tell me that ecumenists are all willful heretics. I beg to differ. I know some very fine Christians who have fallen to the error of ecumenism simply because they are outraged at the religious intolerance and hatred of those who defend sectarian views with a vehemence that vitiates the Church's teaching on love and forgiveness. Is their ecumenism the same as that of a Church Hierarch, sworn at his Consecration to pronounce and preserve and defend the primacy of Orthodoxy, begins teaching religious syncretism, questioning the primacy of Orthodoxy and of Christ? I think not. So, there are many who are ailing in their Faith but who can be cured. But they will not be cured by those who preach with such vehemence that they seem to advocate hatred and wish the premature judgment and spiritual death of sinners.
------

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

Do you remember the extremely interesting event from the life of St. Martin of Tours, when he he cut off communion with all the other bishops of Gaul becuse they had consented to the burning of Priscillian? In the Eastern Empire, so far as I know, the event described (with some relish!) by Anna Komninou is fortunately unique, though there were occasional pursuits of the Jews, sometimes ending in bloodshed.

------
It is quite unique. It was the only case of such an action by imperial decree, to the best of my knowledge. The story is that, in order to carry it out, the Emperor himself had to prepare the stake for the burning. There were actions by mobs, but these were not sanctioned by the Church. Indeed, I am always appalled at the slander against St. John Chrysostomos as an anti-Semite on the basis of misstating his opposition to the Judaizers (heretics), which consistently fails to mention his condemnation of mob action against the Jews (or the fact that Jewish animosity against Christians was not unknown at the time). Thus, those who justify their hateful attack on heretics have little support in the Patristic consensus.
------

However, after the fall of the City, the fourth Rome was quite bloody in its putting down of the Judaizers and the Old Believers; and they, to be fair, were no more fond of non-violence themselves!

------
Dimitry Pospeilovsky, in his book on the Church in Russian history (I cannot recall the name of it) says, in fact, that St. Joseph of Volotsk favored the Spanish Inquisition and advocated the burning of heretics. And, as you say, violence was not unilateral. Pospeilovsky, however, also points out that the advocacy of the use of violence against heretics by the Church was "atypical."
------

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

Indeed, this is an example to be emphasised.

------
The more I read about him, the more I see our own ecclesiology reflected in his pronouncements, his life, and his work after the False Union. He was a man of immense moderation, which is lost on those who, reading his words as epithets and without placing them in historical and personal context, create an entirely false picture of him. How sad.
------

+A. (off to Crete in a moment)

------
Aklo Taxidi. Asking for your prayers,

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC

≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈

To: Exarchate List
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos

Evlogia Kyriou. Happy secular New Year!



AN EXCHANGE FROM THIS MORNING'S MAIL


Comment:

SIR! One of the sickos that defends your heresy just gave me your newest attack on the TRUE Orthodox Christians. Cut through the bull, I want your confession of faith. Do you agree that nonOrthodox and nonChristians can't be saved? or do you think other religions save people? If you think ecumenism is a heresy don't you also believe all ecumenists will suffer eternal damnation? Answer these things and get the whole matter over with!

Answer:

A few points of my own:

        1) I am not God. It is not religion that saves people. God saves people. Therefore, I do not determine who goes to Hell and who does not. Nor, if such were in my purview, would I wish to. If God does not wish the death of any sinner, I, desiring to emulate what is ultimately good (God), also do not, as a sinner myself, wish the death of any sinner.

        Thus, your question about salvation and damnation is a malevolent temptation. I do not consider questions of the type that occasion such temptation virtuous or according to Godliness.

        In the Orthodox Church, enlightenment is salvation, while darkness separates one from God. If you think that you are enlightened by Christ, I rather suspect that your dark desire to see others condemned is at odds with that thought. If so, you should be worrying about the state of your own soul, not the state of the soul of others (let alone my opinion about the souls of my fellow men and women).

        Christ and His "Good News" are the source of joy and hope, not hateful condemnation. Those who evangelize for the purpose of spreading fear, judgment, and wrath have, in my view, lost any sense of what Christianity is about. Christ is the antidote for fear, judgmentalism, and wrath.

        2) My hope for salvation rests on the purity of my own confession and my love of my fellow man. The first concern leads me to leave the relationship between God and others to them and God, unless they ask my advice.

        The second concern leads me to set as good an example as I can for others, to regret deeply my own sins and instances in which I have not set a good example, and to hope and pray for others, whatever their religion or the state of their souls.

        3) Religious toleration and a respect for other religions, as well as actual love for heretics and those whom we consider to be in error, are virtues. Diagnosing fatal spiritual diseases (heresy) in others for the purpose of condemning them to Hell is very much like a doctor seeking a terminal disease in a patient for the purpose of gloating and rejoicing over his or her impending death.

        4) Let us get the whole matter over: I reject your vision of religion, consider it pathological and wholly perverse, and indeed pity you. If what I have written makes me a heretic in your mind (and I am no such thing), so be it.

        Please do not share your views with me again, unless you rehabilitate them and wish to ask me about my own failures in showing love and my regrets about my own imperfections.

        You have my poor prayers.

Forgiving and Judging

[This could apply to us in our response with the betrayal of R0C0R. -jh] 

Christians, we must forgive one who has trespassed against us, even if he does not repent his deed. This does not mean we trust him or feign that he is healed. What it means is that we will not stand with his accusers on judgment day. When the demons assemble to claim his soul, they will point to his sin against us. But the angels will say, nay, the one whom he offended has asked he be not held accountable. Christians do not assist the demons in dragging souls to hell.

We must forgive all trespasses against us. But it is not our place to forgive another's sin against God. This is for God to do. When Christ prayed on the Cross, "Father forgive them," He, as God, asked God to forgive their sins against Him. He, being God, can do this.

Neither is it our place to punish such ones who sin against God. This, too, is for God to do. It is not our place to punish such ones, but we should separate ourselves from their company. If we think that by separating ourselves from those who sin against God, that we are somehow punishing them [judging them -jh], then that is our pride. How can withholding our company be a punishment? Are we so filled with light that without our company a poor wretch can be plunged into darkness?

-source unknown

Church News 1998

This is the Church News article mentioned by Fr. Elia in the previous post.

THE TRANSLATION OF THE COFFIN OF METROPOLITAN PHILARET

On Saturday November 8/21, on the 13th anniversary of repose of the third First Hierarch of the ROCOR, at 3pm the translation took place of his coffin from the crypt of the cemetery chapel of Holy Trinity Monastery to a recently prepared final resting place under the monastery's cathedral church. Next to the new addition to the cathedral, there is a resting place of the second First Hierarch of the ROCOR Metropolitan Anastassy

In order to avoid any possible surprises during the translation of the coffin to another location, Archbishop Laurus, in presence of several clerics, including the deputy Abbott of the Holy Trinity Monastery, Archimandrite Luke, decided to open the coffin after it was removed from the immured burial vault several days previously. lmmediately after the coffin was opened the clergy present at this event took a number of photographs before the remains were cleaned of dust and a bit of cobweb. Then Archbishop Laurus sealed the coffin and let it stand for a few days, until Friday November 7/20.

When Metropolitan Philaret's coffin was opened it was discovered that his body was totally incorrupt. When the dust was removed it became obvious that also the vestments of the Metropolitan looked as if they had been just put on. Even the paper with an absolution prayer in his hand, as well as the Gospel which was lay on his chest, also, suffered no changes. His mantia which covered the coffin was found to be in perfect order just dusty The color of hls face and hands darkened a bit only after they were washed with rose water and wine. His legs also uncovered but not washed, retained their natural color.

News of the incorruption of the beloved and respected Archpastor spread like lightening. The spread of this news was also helped by official information given by the Synod's chancellery on the Internet.

The previous plans for translating the coffin called it to be carried in a church procession but then it started to rain and Archbtshop Laurus ordered the coffin be brought by car. On Friday, exactly at 3pm the sound of the huge bell from the bell tower of the monastery was heard and in about 10 minutes the car with the Metropolitan's coffin arrived at the entrance to the cathedral. Met by clergy and the monastery brotherhood, the coffin was carried into the church while singing the irmos "A help and refuge hath salvation become to me" and right after a panikhida was begun. lt was presided over by Archbishop Laurus with some 10 concelebrating priests and 6 deacons and protodeacons. In the church there were some 200 hundred people. After the panikhida, the coffin was moved near the wall and at 7pm a vigil service began.

Already knowing of the incorruption of Metropoltian Philaret a number of clergy and lay people insistently urged Archbishop Laurus to open the coffin for these 24 hours, but he categorically refused claiming that he had no blessing for it from his superior and that he already sent his report to Metropolitan Vitaly. At the same iime it became known that Archbishop Laurus forbade any copies be made of the existing photographs and even forbade that they be shown to anyone.

The next day, on Saturday November 8/21 the Divine Liturgy was served for the feast of St Michael, the Archangel. Bishop Gabriel, who intended to participate, unexpectedly fell ill and because of a high fever could not attend. Eighteen priests participated in the Liturgy, 11 deacons and protodeacons while a number of priests came to Liturgy, but prayed among the lay people in the cathedral. This service was attended by some 400 people. During the communion of the clergy, Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov delivered an excellent homily in which he outlined a spiritual portrait of the reposed First Hierarch.

After the end of Liturgy at which communion was given from two chalices and before a panikhida, Archbishop Laurus said that finally, after waiting for 13 years the additionai crypt had been built for the Metropolitan's coffin and that he himself and the Synod of Bishops received numerous and insistent requests to bury finally the remnants of Metropolitan Philaret. Archbishop Laurus also at great length explained why he refused the wish of clergy and lay people to keep the coffin open, and he had to admit, that his refusal "was a cause for disappointment and sadness." He repeated again that he had sent a report to Metropolitan Vitaly and now, it is all up to the Synod's decision as to how to respond to the incorruption of Metropolitan Philaret. At the end of his sermon. Archbishop Laurus called upon the faithful to not so much concentrate on this event, but to pray for the Metropolitan and also to him until the will of God becomes obvious. A majority of clergy and faithful were at a loss regarding the absence at this feast of Metropolitan Vitaly, who only a year ago disappointed all by his absence from the funeral of Jose the guardian of the mrryrh-gushing icon, whose body was also found to be incorrupt. Yet the absence of the Metropolitan and also other Archpastors at such a solemn occasion as a translation of incorrupt relics of a former First Hierarch, could not dampen the festive mood of all the participants. After the end of the panikhida, the coffin with the Metropolitan's relics was carried in a church procession around the cathedral and after a short litia put in the crypt permanently, while a marble sarcophagus is made.

The translation of the Metropolitan's coffin concluded with a memorial trapeza offered by the monastery's brotherhood. The trapeza included several rooms due to the number of people to be seated.

While a very young archimandrite in Kharbin, Metropolitan Philaret was absolutely irreconcilable toward the Moscow Patriarchate. Even then, when influenced [tricked -jh] by the propaganda of Soviet hierarchs in the 40's during the occupation cf the Far East by the Red Army, the entire episcopate acknowledged the Moscow Patriarchate [including Archbishop John of Shanghai) and his own father Bishop Dimrtri of Hailar together with other hierarchs repatriated to USSR - only Archrmandrite Philaret in his eloquent and forceful sermons spoke of the lies of the MP and even refused to serve molebens for those who were to be repatriated. On several occasions he was summoned for interrogations (at one of them he was even beaten] and then an effort was made to kill him: a house in which he lived was set on fire and windows and doors of the ground floor were blocked. Fr. Philaret managed to escape by jumping from the window of the second floor, while rather severely burned. As a result of these burns, until the end he suffered a slight disfiguration of the lower part of his face and some bending of his head. His vocal cords also suffered.

The reposed Metropolitan very much respected Metropolitan Anthony, corresponded with him and was his true disciple, agreeing with all his views and convictions.

In connection with the revealed incorruption of Metropolitan Philaret, it is proper to inform our readers about another case which probably is not known even now.

When Metropolitan Anthony died in Sremskri Karlovci and had no money at all, Patriarch Varnava called the Secretary of the Synod of the ROCOR [at that time Count George Grabbe] and asked him to purchase the best and most expensive coffin he could find. Karlovci is a small town and as it became known later, the very best and expensive coffin had slits in the bottom. The funeral service for Metropolitan Anthony was conducted in the patriarchal cathedral in Belgrade. For this occasion the Yugoslavian government gave all their Russian employees tirne off. The Belgrade cemetery, which had a very big Russran section [in which was an enlarged replica of the chapel of lveron in Moscow) and where Metropolitan willed to be buried, was on the outskirts of the capital. The Metropolitan's coffin was brought to the gates of cemetey by the car and then to the church carried by the clergy. At that moment two priests noted that a mixture of oil and wine had leaked onto their shoulders. [Metropolitan received the sacrament of oil].

About some two years after the burial of Metropolitan Anthony it was discovered that there was underground water in the crypt. The sarcophagus had to be pulled apart and the coffin lifted out in order to be able to work. Archimandrite Theodossy was present, a faithful servant and friend of the Metropolitan. When the marble part of the sarcophagus was removed, it was obvious that the coffin looked as if it had just been put in. According to an admission of Father Theodossy he badly wanted to open the lid of coffin but he did not dare to. The workers noticed his emotions and started asking questions about who the deceased was to him and when he died. When they found out that the Metropolitan had died some two years previously the workers were astonished and said that after such a period of time they normally could not work without masks and when they found out that this was a bishop they piously crossed themselves and declared that undoubtedly this must have been a saintly man.

It is also interesting to note that Metropolitan Anastassy was buried on the fifth day after his repose in a warm period at the end of May. The funeral home attendants at that time asked what must be done in the Orthodox Church to have no change in the appearance of Metropolitan Anastassy and no odor. They were told that there must be a pious life.

Unfortunately, spiteful people spread rumors that both Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret were embalmed. At present time there are still many witnesses alive who participated in the organization of the funerals of both First Hierarchs who know that the procedure for both Metropolitans was the same as for every 0rthodox clergyman: after repose, their bodies are washed and vested by clergy who themselves lay them into coffins. In both cases, the funeral directors delivered the coffins to the Synod of Bishops and the entire participation of those funeral homes was limited only to delivering the coffins from New York to Jordanville. The Deputy Secretary of the Synod of Bishops, His Grace Bishop Gabriel, regarding this false information issued an official statement categorically denying the possibility of embalming.

In reporting this event in The Life of the ROCOR, a bulletin published in St. Petersburg, issue # 11(44), noted not without reason that "recently we were informed from Jordanville that the relics of Metropolitan Philaret were again lowered into grave and given up to the soil, which evokes at the very least bewilderment."

http://www.roacusa.org/2.ChurchNews/1998/CN19981276.PDF
Many other issues of Church News in English 1975-2005:
http://www.roacusa.org/documents.html

Met. Anthony Incorrupt Relics

0n a Yahoo Group forum back in 2004, Fr. Elia mentioned that Met. Anthony's [Khrapovitsky] relics had been discovered incorrupt.  I asked him to share more of what he knows about this and here is what he wrote:

From: Burning Bush
Sent: Fri 12/25/09
To: Joanna Higginbotham

Dear Joanna,
God's blessing!

It was some time ago, and I am much older and forgetful now. I can only tell you what I remember.

There was an article published in CHURCH NEWS, which was basically published by the Grabbe Family. The only living member, who might remember more is Bishop Gregory's daughter, Matushka Maria Shishkoff.

At that time [1936] all coffins in Serbia were made with slats in the bottom to allow for the natural draining of bodily fluids with decay. Serbian grave diggers were opening up a grave adjacent to that of Metropolitan Anthony at Novi Sad, about a year after his repose. In the normal order of things, the normal processes of decay would have been evident. The Serbian gravediggers were quite surprised that there were none, so they inquired about it asking who was it who had been buried there, and so it became known to those who were involved. The then Count Grabbe, already Chancellor of the RCA was naturally informed.

If you can find an issue of Church News from the time of the discovery of Metropolitan Philaret's incorrupt relics, you will find the article. I forget the year. [Nov. 1998]

It is noteworthy because Fr. John Shaw denied that there was anything unusual about the incorrupt relics of Metropolitan Philaret, and had alternative suggestions, such as maybe Metropolitan Philaret had been embalmed (but Bishop Gregory had been in charge of the procedure and would not have allowed embalming.  He made a point of the story of Met. Anthony's incorrupt body).   Fr. Shaw also alledged that being buried above ground was itself reason enough. Consult your local physican to know this is not true.

Unbelievers are desperate to discredit God's miraculous intervention.

Those who were closest to Metropolitan Anthony, and Bishop Gregory know the truth. The Jews who saw Lazarus risen after four days, wished him dead again because the miracle was "inconvenient".

All this is public knowledge, a matter of public record. Tell whomsoever you wish. Those who do not want to believe will not.

Hieromonk Elia


Sister Churches Unity Under Attack

To: Exarchate Clergy and Faithful
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos

May God bless you.

As many of you know from the Internet sewer, several hundred followers of a number of extremist "Old Calendarists" or "traditionalists" have for years been trying to destroy the unity between the Synod in Resistance and the coalition we have formed with our Sister Churches in Romania and Bulgaria and, of late, with the ROCA under Metropolitan Agafangel.

Our coalition was dealt a horrendous blow by the ROCA/MP's union with Moscow in 2007, many of the supporters of which also strongly opposed union with our Synod in Resistance and the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists in 1993 and 1994. My suspicion is that those who opposed union with us had a "different" union already in mind. We may have compromised them, in this regard, by our resistance to world Orthodoxy, which they wanted to embrace. This is especially so in the case of our Synod in Resistance, since our ecclesiology is not only Patristic, but follows the "Royal Path," making it difficult for world Orthodoxy to dismiss us as sectarians, as they can (and do) the extremist Old Calendarist resisters.

Now, the divisive sectarians whom I mentioned in my first paragraph, who accuse our Synod of "crypto-ecumenism" and call us "Cyprianites," are trying to spread extremism (while at the same time serving their opportunistic and sectarian ends) as a method of sowing discord among the faithful of our Sister Churches in Romania and Bulgaria. A few hundred of them hold forth on the Internet as large groups, doing all that they can to create a "presence" (much like the extremist Old Calendarists in Greece, who, though actually several tens of thousands in number, often claim a million faithful!) and attract followers. While I doubt that many of them are overt "agents" or are necessarily consciously among those who would like to see any intelligent, educated resistance collapse in Orthodoxy, they ARE the "witless agents" of all who would to divide the resistance by any means possible.

In Romania, these extremists are working assiduously to create discord in that huge and healthy Old Calendarist Church, spreading rumors, slander, and every form of disinformation. In the last few months, I have had many letters from Romania, all of the writers assuming that I am a cretin and trying to trap me into making statements or taking actions that might compromise our Synod of Bishops. I am thus sharing the following typical example of such attempts with you, so that, should you read such things on the Internet sewer, you will understand that they are part of the foul effluence that one would expect from sectarians and the hatred and division that they spread and from the agents who use such people to spread division. The best defense against such things is our own unity and our avoidance of sectarian contentions.

* * *


Hello, my name is xxx and I"m from Romania, I bellong to the Romanian Orthodox Church Old Calendaristic (Mitropolia Slatioara).

I"m writhing to ask about a small problem we seem to have in Romania: our mitropolit Vlasie Mogârzan wants the legalisation of our church, this will lead to certain advantages from the Romanian State, we dont know for sure because there are a lot of rumours about what that "legalisation" will help us or not.

In some towns at the churches people were asked to sign the "petition for legalisation", not in all churches and now a lot of people say that this is sergenism and now they stay and pray at home, and others still go to church.

Our (i and behalf of my friends and brothers) question is: - going to church is a sinn or not ?

- is our situation the same as what was in Russia with comunist patriarh Sergey Stragorosdski ?

- what to do now ?

Need to mention that we are considered as "Traditionalist Christian Cult" and we are very legal to be. Just that we think this "legalisation" is a bad thing and we suspect the clergy wants money from the government.

Thank you very much for having the patience to read this, sorry for my bad english, and we await your answer when you have the time.

------

St. Anna and the Feast of the
Conception of the Theotokos

Dear Mr. xxx:

May God bless you.

I cannot answer your questions about the internal matters of our Sister Church in Romania, which are not my business.

I would, however, note the following:

a) There is no greater sin than than that of a son who, having been reared and nurtured through the sacrifices of his father and having received a paternal legacy which is a virtual treasure, criticizes, doubts, and denigrates his own father.

The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, now under the guidance of Metropolitan Vlasie, a spiritual son of the Confessor and Martyr St. Glicherie, has bequeathed to you, its son, a treasure which you did not earn and which has in fact been washed in the blood of Martyrs. How can you, failing to "honor your Father," dare question your Church's motives on the basis of gossip, speculation, and matters which are not only not MY business, but also not YOURS? Who appointed you representative of the Church?

b) There are a few foreign sectarians who, preaching a defiant, extreme, and dangerous line, have attempted to usurp the authority of the Old Calendar Church of Romania. These sectarians are motivated by opportunism and the need for glory; and they are inspired by spirits that are not of Christ and which have blinded them. If you are listening to them, my advice is like that of St. Mark of Ephesus: "Flee from them as you would from a serpent." Obey your Church and cleanse yourself from the defilement of sectarians and those who spread division and dissent in the name of Orthodoxy. These few hundred people are trying to destroy the unity of many hundreds of thousands of Romanian Old Calendarists. What evil!

c) How dare you or anyone, after the sacrifices of the Old Calendar Church of Romania, accuse the Church and its clergy of seeking money. Perhaps those who want money and recognition are those who have inspired you to have such doubts and raise such blasphemous, judgmental, and evil questions. On the cross of money you wish to crucify your Church leaders, accusing them of using, rather than serving, the Church? Shame on you. And shame on those who have inspired such ideas in you.

d) If I have wrongly judged you, and you truly wish simply to know my opinion, I would tell you to go to Slatioara, do a prostration before Metropolitan Vlasie, and ask his forgiveness for your terrible sin.

e) If you are agent of the Patriarchate, wishing to cause division among the Old Calendarists, then I would say to you: veritas vincet omnia. The truth will never fail before the tactics of those who serve compromise and chicanery in the name of Christ. (And I tasted of their perverse, filthy tactics and vile threats myself, when I was in Romania!) Collaborators and betrayers will find their own reward.

f) If you are, as I suspect, an agent of foreign extremist opportunists and provocateurs, who wish to "steal" the "reward" for work that they did not do, I would remind you that the Romanian Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Vlasie, whom (along with him) I know, love, and respect, sealed their witness to Christ with their blood and with years of persecution, imprisonment, and sacrifice. Those whom you follow, interlopers, opportunists, and thieves of what is not theirs, will fall on their own swords. Do not fall on your own sword by following them. And if you are a good Christian, chastise and shame them, with the hope that they will repent and awaken to the evil forces that they actually serve.

Forgive my harshness, but I hear too often, now, from those like you, who are trying to destroy our Sister Church in Romania, to separate our Sister Churches, and to spread dissent and division by whatever means possible. That you would even want to question your Church under Metropolitan Vlasie, the largest Old Calendar Church in resistance, tells me what forces are acting on you. They are forces that will, in the end, destroy you, your family, and all that you hold dear. Remember the Egyptians? What befell them, as unbelievers, when they sought to destroy those whom God chose to favor is nothing next to what befalls believers who harm the Church, and especially with sectarian extremism. But it is not God Who will punish you. You will be mocked and destroyed by the evil that you serve.

I will pray for your enlightenment. Please share my views with those in Romania who, along with you, write me often and who try to spread division where sacred and firm unity in fact still exists: among us who serve Christ.

Least Among Monks, + Archbishop Chrysostomos


ROCOR United enemy blog cheers at setback



click on photos to enlarge






Sticky

√ From The Economist print edition, Dec 17th 2009
The Holy Land
Where Piety Meets Power
How the Russian church and with it the Russian state are gaining ground, in several senses, in the Holy Land
http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15108627

√ Note: This highly inspiring missionary journey of SIR Synod Bishop Ambrose of Methone, to Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc. is a marvel to read about! He is a spiritual giant among living Orthodox bishops, and among his many talents, he is multi-lingual. He cares about and serves all nationalities and races.
God bless Bishop Ambrose of our sister church, The Synod In Resistance! MANY YEARS!
Reader Daniel Everiss
http://www.synodinresistance.org/pdfs/2009/12/12/E20091212aAustralia11-09/E20091212aAustralia11-09.pdf

Why Are Not More People Leaving ROCOR-MP?

We remember that the first reason given for the MP union was that "Communism is over!"

A recent LaRussophobe article starts out:
Welcome Back to the USSR  -- Three years ago, when we began calling Russia the “neo-Soviet Union,” some scoffed. They said Russia could “never go back” to those dark days, even though it had a proud KGB spy as its ruler. Now, our statement is simply conventional wisdom, and Russians themselves openly say so...
Nobody anymore believes communism is over.  It is just too obviously still here.  So why are not more people leaving the ROCOR-MP?  Several of us have wondered about this. We expected that time would reveal the truth - and it has.  So where are the many people who now have their doubts confirmed?  Why are they staying in the ROCOR-MP?

I have found two reasons:
1. denial
2. resignation

An example of denial is HERE .  In this example a unionite purposely suppresses his conscience telling himself that his doubts are "rebellious thoughts" and "temptations to judge."  He says he has less to confess if he keeps these things to himself.

An example of resignation is HERE .  In this example a unionite priest gives up the cherished dream of a resurrected Russia and faces the "reality" that a dream is a dream - and this is the real world.  He has accepted the "working from within" lie and expects to help defend Russia against the heterodox influences.  He is resigned to facing the tasks without fear, just as one should not fear going into a hospital to help the sick.

What is behind this denial and this resignation?  The priest, in the example above, points directly to it. It is a failure to recognize the true Church.  In that failure, he tries to figure it out logically.  He ends up talking himself into believing what he does not really believe.

Both these examples are causes for the deepest sadness my heart has ever known.  But let's continue.  Next question:  What is behind this failure to recognize the true Church?

"Whoever is attentive to the unrelenting warfare of the devil against Christ's Holy Church will always know where to find the true Church." (Unknown Catacomb Bishop 1948)
Christ told the Jews that if they had studied the prophets, that they would have recognized Him.  Fr. Seraphim Rose said that the reason to study end-time teachings is to be able to recognize Antichrist [and antichrist].  The historical ROCOR emphasized eschatology.  It was the Laurus synod that started suppressing it.  And it is world Orthodoxy that ridicules it.  In studying eschatology we silence all the noise that prevents us from hearing where the true Church is.  "My sheep know My voice."

Our prophets tell us:  Russia WILL resurrect!  There will be a glorious miraculous flowering with a God-appointed Orthodox Tzar who will purge the Church of all the false clergy, which is going to be almost all of them.  Russia will lead a world-wide conversion with thousands coming from all over the world to be baptized.  We are even warned not to be fooled by the first "flowering" which will be a false one.  These are tried and true prophecies, not newly unearthed ones.

ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, United for How Long?

Transplanted from Useless Dissident Blog:  FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2009

ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, United for How Long?

10/30/1970:
The Moscow Patriarchate in its present form consists of persons selected by the atheist state and is absolutely controlled by the latter and imprisoned. The main feature of this imprisonment of the Patriarchate is that it not only does not glorify the countless New Martyrs of the Russian Church, but even mocks their memory, stating that there are no persecutions of the Church in the USSR and that there have been no such persecutions.
ROCOR, or the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church on May 17, 2007. ROCOR waited a long time to end this schism, for a long time not trusting the Russian state to be substantially different from its Soviet past; or to keep out of the affairs of the church.

Present at the ceremonyVladimir Putin:
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who played a key role in facilitating reunification, also spoke at the ceremony.

"The split in the church was caused by an extremely deep political split within Russian society itself," said Putin, who has attended Orthodox services.

"We have realized that national revival and development in Russia are impossible without reliance on the historical and spiritual experience of our people," Putin added.

"We understand well, and value, the power of pastoral words which unite the people of Russia. That is why restoring the unity of the church serves our common goals."
Our common goals... To me, that is a chilling phrase. What common goals do the Orthodox Church and the Criminal Fascist State share? Will Putin ensure that the Church has the state's goals?
Reunification has been a controversial issue within the church abroad, with opponents arguing that the hierarchy in Moscow still has not properly addressed the issue of KGB infiltration of the church hierarchy during the Soviet period.

Konstantin Preobrazhensky
, a former KGB officer turned Kremlin critic who now lives in the U.S. said Thursday in a telephone interview from Washington that he believes the church outside Russia would lose its independence and that eventually priests with loyalties to the Russian government would be sent to work in the United States.
The picture above is the criminal Putin present at the elevation of a new Patriarch over the Russian Orthodox Church (both home and Abroad): Kyrill.

In a recent article entitled "Putin's Espionage Church," Preobrazhensky begins:
On May 17, 2007, Russia has gained a historical victory over America. It has opened its province here, which is called the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Of Russia (ROCOR). On this day it has recognized Moscow’s superiority over itself by signing an Act of Canonical Community with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). But in Russia the Church and state separated only on paper. In fact, the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) is controlled by the Russian neo-KGB state and has always been the pawn of the Russian intelligence.
Preobrazhensky exaggerates greatly, but he is to be taken seriously. For those who attend  ROCOR churches it should be positively chilling.

From Preobrazhensky, also read:
Does Putin believe in God?
An interview with Washington Profile
POSTED BY USELESS DISSIDENT

INDEED – “ABOUT ROCOR UNITED”

by Seraphim Larin
Vernost #125 May 2009


For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who
suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18)


Having “ingested” (Met. Laurus’s words) ROCOR with clandestine delight, the Metropolitan Patriarchate has now decided to consolidate its position in Australia by establishing an organization that “is an independent stream of news and commentary in support of the united ROCOR and the MP”. It’s quite humorous to read these self-contradictory terms, because you cannot have independence when there is a blatant and self-declared commitment in support of one objective. Given this declaration, can a rational mind imagine reading any valid criticisms from this body about ROCOR or the MP? How can a slave be independent from his master’s wishes and directives? Yet the KGB “apparatchiks” that are apparently in control of these spiritual vagrants, obviously lack the knowledge of the English language to be either believable in expression, or authentic in content. May I suggest they “bone up” on the English language before they enter its world of idioms and nuances, because their initial inept foray into the written word and definitive pronouncements must surely reveal them as obvious charlatans and counterfeit amateurs that glaringly lack promise of a distinctive curiosity about the abounding accusations of pat. “nicotine” Kirill’s and his MP’s damning activities.


However in the first instance, let us analyse the newly created body under a football-sounding name of “ROCOR UNITED” – and their opening infantile publication under the style of “About ROCOR UNITED”.


In declaring that they are “the best ENGLISH LANGUAGE source on Russian Orthodox Church news and affairs”, they have certainly allowed themselves to be ridiculed for their basic incorrectness of reporting facts. By stating that the “renegade priest and schismatic activist Vladimir Tsukanov has provocatively taken out a LEASE on a building across the road”, their seemingly impressive “correspondents in various locations around the world” are obviously a bunch of incompetents, because the building was BOUGHT and not LEASED – a simple search of Council records would have told them that. Predictably, as with every KGB modus operandi, truth and accuracy are conveniently ignored so that their own mendacious “facts” can attract support from the uninformed readers.


The next “profound” offering in this publication announces: “A sign on the door reads ‘Russian True Orthodox Church’. The word ‘True’ in glitter sticker has been hastily added between ‘Russian’ and ‘Orthodox’ to (ironically) distinguish it from the real Russian Orthodx (sic) Church”.


Ironically, the author’s declaration of the “real” ROC is as correct as his spelling of “Orthodx”, because his bold statement is as believable as the  assurances of a dentist. After decades of the former true ROCOR’s declarations that the MP is a man-made “soviet creation”, he now bravely announces that this communist instrumentality that has supported a godless government, which has annihilated millions of true faithful and demolished 50,000 churches and monasteries, has suddenly become the true Russian Orthodox Church!!! Can he explain the cleansing canonical process through which this godless apparatus went through in order to claim this title???  Yet he boldly proclaims that the man-made MP is the true Russian Orthodox Church! All this statement does is reveal another of MP’s fluent self-inventions that are perpetuated by the ROCA (MP) clergy, who have become spiritual impresarios, conducting their lies in uninterrupted mediocrity without definable ambitions - apart from maintaining their cosy and profitable lifestyles. In reality, they are living on the MP’s inventions of past glories and false holiness.


But let us continue with the article.


The sentence: “The Saint Nicholas Church is the home parish of the Dean of NSW, highly respected Archpriest Fr. Nikita Chemodakov (brother of Bishop Gabriel of Montreal and Canada)”, demands some painful corrections of image and presentation of these two betraying brothers, who have by their own actions and admissions, stand condemned as liars and violators of Church Laws and Apostolic Canons.


Let us consider the following, firstly Bishop Gabriel.


Some time ago, this is what I wrote in my article about him titled “Bishop Gabriel (Chemodakov) – A chameleon in a cassock”:


During his official visit to Moscow in February 2008, Bishop Gabriel – Synodal Secretary of ROCOR (MP) - was interviewed by the editor of “Russian Line” and another local notable. In this interview, Bish. Gabriel displayed an extraordinary talent for spiritual gymnastics and moral flexibility to reflect the MP’s corrosive strategy. Displaying a remarkable lapse in memory, some of his answers to questions deserve to be appraised because of their insulting nature and questionable correctness.


Question: “Vladyka, to what extent have your fears been realized as to the significant departure of faithful from ROCOR after the signing of the Act of canonical communion with MP? It would appear that those who have left ROCOR are making a lot of noise, yet their numbers are small.”


Bhp. Gabriel: “Let us be frank: the REUNIFICATION cost us dearly… I wrote and spoke, and to this day repeat: it’s essential to remember that separating yourself from your Archbishop can only be done, if he publicly advocates some type of heresy that has been condemned by the Church… Can it be said that the Moscow Patriarch is preaching heresy?. ”


Firstly, the word “reunification” suggests that at some stage in the past, ROCOR and MP were one….WHEN?? As facts have it, ROCOR came into being in 1920, while MP was created by the Soviet government in 1927!!! Could it be that the MP was part of ROCOR and that they separated in 1927? What a patent absurdity! Consequently, the use of this word constitutes a blatant lie and is applied in order to give credence to the illegal and Soviet creation - the MP.


In the ensuing text of his answer covering acts of heresy, Bhp. Gabriel – once again – shows scant regard to existing and incontrovertible facts. This is what ROCOR’s own publication “Orthodox Russia” reported in its February 2006 issue:


“From Bollettino Di San Nicola.


The Italian journal of the Dominican Order in Bari, drew attention to the annual ecumenical prayers performed in the basilica of Saint Nicholas. In this instance, the participants in this prayer were the Roman Catholic Archbishop Francesco Cachucha of Bari, Met.Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad (locum tenens i.e. Deputy to the Patriarch) and Fr.Vladimir Koochoomov – both from the Moscow Patriarchate.”


But the telling part is:


“From Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milano.


In 2003, a book written by Angelica Capifavi was published in Italy, titled “A discourse with Alexis 11, Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia”. On page 251 of that book, in responding to a question concerning Catholic proselytism (seeking new converts) within Russian territory, Patriarch Alexis stated that between sister-Churches, there can be no proselytism.”


Shouldn’t such a senior hierarch like Bhp.Gabriel be aware that to regard the Roman Catholic Church as our sister Church IS HERESY ?? Would he now have the courage to acknowledge that those who refused to unite with a Soviet creation, did so with full canonical right, and that it is those that have willingly, allowed themselves to be “swallowed up”(Met.Laurus’s expression) by the MP, will in Bhp.Gabriel’s words “damage themselves spiritually and hinder their salvation, which is frightening to contemplate”.


So much for Bishop Gabriel’s integrity! Now for his brother – “highly respected” (sic) Fr.Nikita.


This false pastor was my spiritual father for 30+ YEARS!!, so I think I do have some knowledge of the person, both as an individual and priest.


When the tragic “unification” occurred on the day of infamy – 17th of May, 2007 – Fr.Nikita phoned me to come back to his church, which I left some time ago. During our conversation, I asked him who he was commemorating as head of his Church during Divine Liturgy. His response was Met.Laurus – he was exercising his right to ignore pat. Alexis (a.k.a. KGB comrade Drozdov) as the head of the MP for a period of 5 years – an act in itself that runs contrary to the Church Statutes. However, let’s press on.


In pointing out to him that this is what he was proclaiming vocally to the faithful, I asked him who he was commemorating as head of his Church during proskomedia (where this is done silently and not heard by anyone except God), he paused for approximately 8/9 seconds to guiltily admit:  “pat.”Alexis !! Having expected this answer, I pointed out to him not only was he violating the sanctity and spiritual integrity of the Church Service, but that he was LYING (a gross SIN) to his parishioners – and he AGREED, justifying his actions with: “The parishioners have to get used to the idea”!!! Yet according to Rocor United, these two self-confessed liars are “highly respected”!!


Fr.Nikita has carefully cultivated vagueness of smile, humility in approach and a bedside manner that is the envy of all serious politicians and mediocre used-car salesmen. Unfortunately, he and Bishop Gabriel have lost their power of lucid response to valid indictments of their concessions to the vulgar spirits of the age, which are so adeptly personified by the MP and its head – pat. “nicotine” Kirill Goondaev.


Reading on, we find that the RTOC church at Fairfield has created consternation among the parishioners at the Sergianist/MP/Stalin’s patriarchate church – else why are they so excited about Fr.Vladimir’s church? They don’t seem to have the same worries and jaundiced eye against the hand-clapping, guitar playing, drum bashing Charismatic “church” some 100 metres away from them. Is it because they regard it as an ecumenical “sister-Church”??, whereas the RTOC represents a threat as the living TRUTH against their monstrous betrayal of Christ’s Church??


Then comes a typical declaration that is devoid of truth yet wishful in content: “Ironically, it is this chapter of the RTOC that has lost a number of parishioners recently, who realized that the RTOC was a completely uncanonical organization that was leading them astray, and have returned to ROCOR”. For the GENUINE record, the 3 RTOC churches in Sydney have seen a steady growth in faithful numbers as more and more of MP’s heretical and outrageous activity is exposed to the light of day. Is Fr.Nikita willing to allow an independent auditor to examine the books of his church to determine the dramatic loss of parishioners – in comparison to when the church was still a true church? I am sure that he would decline such an offer, because the findings would be damning for both him and the brazen liar that had written the above fairytale. As a former auditor of his church, I personally know of 16 people that have left the schismatic and self-confessed liar Fr.Nikita and his now graceless church.


Coming to the end of the article, we find nomenclator’s comments through his defining creations - “Artyom” and “anonymous” – as less than plausible. In not revealing their true identities (if they are real), and not producing any provable facts, the author exposes himself as being some lowly KGB “apparatchik”, handicapped with limited imagination  and trying out his lack of skills with feeble determination.


But let us deal with these churlish comments that are obviously created by cowardly individuals, who are morally disabled and subconsciously infected with obsessional dishonesty.


The initial comments of “anonymous” and “artyom”, reflect demonic hatred against a true Christian church that is obviously disturbing their somnolent consciences. Why this panic? Is the Truth starting to get to them? Their pat. “nicotine” Kirill Goondaev’s recent warning – bordering on menace – to all Orthodox Churches that are not part of the soviet MP, suggests calculated future intimidating activities, if not outright violence against them, which is now taking place in Russia against the Catacomb/RTOC. This clearly reveals his true beliefs and spiritual barbarism.


Another “profound’ statement by pk (sic): “We need to look at this sometimes as a cleansing of the church…” If that’s the case, why did met.Laurus and most of his hierarchs sully the previously pure ROCOR by uniting with the unrepentant and godless contagion called the Moscow Patriarchate?? Pk should apply whatever commonsense he has toward realizing that the brave and TRUE faithful of ROCOR that refused to join the “soviet creation” (ROCOR’s former description of the MP), have remained pure and unsullied! He and his fellow travellers are the ones in need of a spiritually cleansing “shower”, because they were the ones that left the True Church. They are the sad and morally shallow individuals that are drifting in a kind of dull cataleptic trance, ignoring the fact that they will arrive at a graceless loneliness, which offers no grounds for redemption yet guarantees eternal torment. Their remarkably stubborn refusal to acknowledge that their comrade pat. Kirill declared in the early 1990’s that he doesn’t believe in Christ’s Resurrection – widely published in the Russian press – confirms that they are all about memories, myths and self-delusion, and are motivated more by misspent fervour and physical opulence than by facts. Pk’s “cleansing of the church” should be more aptly applied to his MP, because while they rule the internet and air-waves – particularly in Russia where they have been illegally closing down dissident web sites, while interfering in every manner possible with web sites of overseas opponents – there is a desperate need for them to purify their own pulpit, which specializes in deceit and outright heresy!


The MP and its followers are incapable of accepting the truth about them that keeps flaring up at irregular intervals like herpes, and to them, just as unpleasant. The church opening of the Russian True Orthodox Church in Fairfield, is a prime example of this.


Unfortunately, this new MP “independent” publication is no doubt here to stay, and will be another source of misinformation with a “Dear Dorothy Dix” type of commentary.


I look forward with tediosity and a “ho-hum” attitude to their next issue, which will no doubt be based on odious creative lies and self-righteous posturings. But then again, what can be expected from the religious section of the KGB – oops… sorry - FSB.


I forgot, there is no more godless communism in Russia. After all, She has been “liberated” with a godless dictatorial “democracy” headed by church-candle-lighting “Christian” politicians!