Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church?

 By Professor I.M. Andreyev
Translated from the Russian published originally in Jordanville, New York 1948

This book is available for purchase here: http://www.monasterypress.com/presstitles.html

Authority is an establishment of God. 

 

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1) 

 

This same was claimed by Plato in pre-Christian antiquity, understanding authority as an hierarchy rising toward God. 

 

In other words, only a God-established authority is a genuine authority. But an authority which does not recognize the higher authority of God over her, is not an authority, but despotism. 

 

The Soviet authority in the USSR is not a true authority, but a denial of the essence itself, of the principle itself, of the idea of authority itself, and an affirmation of despotism. 

 

Atheism is a horrible evil. It is generated by either the greatest sin of pride, or is conditioned by a total indifference toward the question of religion and morality (i.e. toward Truth and Love), or it is the result of criminal misconjecture. “The fool hath said in his heart there is no God.” (Psalm 14:1) 

 

The state authority in the USSR, showing itself as an open and cynical despotism, sets as the main task of its ideological politics the spreading of atheism, helped by the principle of extreme spiritual and physical state force. A system of universal propaganda, bought to perfection, built on state-organized falsehood, deception, temptations and terror, together with the diabolically cruel, perfected system of torture and torments, being systematically and by principle used by the Soviet state for the glory of atheism -is a phenomenon, which is absolutely new, and by nature, profoundly different from all known aspects of cruelty and force in world history.

The main aggression of the Bolshevik state is directed toward Christianity, as the most perfect form of religion, and especially towards Orthodoxy, the most perfect form of Christianity. Bolshevism, the highest phenomenon of anti-Christianity, is the idea of antichrist. 

 

If the Orthodox Christian Church is mystically the “Body of Christ,” then the Bolshevik Communist party is mystically the body of antichrist. 

 

The personal, historical, apocalyptic phenomenon of antichrist does not principally add anything new to this idea of antichrist. He is only giving it a final shape, centralizing and universalizing this idea throughout the whole world, creating an absolutely hopeless situation for all humanity. For before every man then arises the question, which one cannot avoid answering (not only verbally, but also in ones deeds): Does he submit to the “authority” of antichrist, in order to receive the stamp of antichrist on “his forehead” or “the hand”? (According to Bishop Damaskin, “on the forehead” means “voluntary, full spiritual enslavement”, and “on the hand”—association “because of fear.”) Those not receiving the stamp will be tortured and tormented so that “even the elect will be tempted,” (Mark 13:22) and if time would not be curtailed “no flesh would endure."(Mark 13:20)

 

The final goal of Bolshevism is, to establish its “authority” throughout the world with the help of world revolution. If this happens, the Bolshevik communist world government, in the person of “the leader of the nation of the world,” will stand as head of the whole world—and this surely will be the place for the personification of the historical, apocalyptic antichrist. 

 

One must clearly, distinctly and firmly understand, that the Soviet authority is the first in the history of the world, an original cynically-open antichristian authority, that is - a theomachistic [God-fighting] absolute power. 

 

Without the acknowledgement of this profoundly and innately, unique evaluation of the “Soviet authority”—there is no “problem with communism.” 

 

If Bolshevik communism is only one out of many systems of government, in quality not a new occurrence in the history of the world, if the “Soviet authority” is only one out of the worst and most cruel systems (let her even be the worst of the worst and the most cruel), then there is no special “spiritual crisis of humanity” and there is altogether no new spiritual problem. Then one must consider the phenomenon of communism only from a political, economical, military or “utilitarian-moral” point of view, just as at the present time the majority of political leaders of the whole world do. We see the results of such interpretation: bolshevism slowly, unimpeded is conquering the world. 

 

Few people understand the mystical force of bolshevism. Let us remember the tremendous scene in the book “Tales about Antichrist” by Vladimir Soloviev, when the first hierarch of the Orthodox Church, the holy elder John, suddenly understanding who stood before him, exclaimed loudly, clearly, firmly, resolutely, and convincingly: “Children, but this is Antichrist!” 

 

The Russian Orthodox Catacomb Church in the USSR, a church of confessors of faith and martyrs, consider the Soviet state authority to be the authority of the antichrist. 

 

The historical delegation of the Petrograd eparchy in 1927, headed by Bishop Dimitry of Gdov (shot in 1937 after a ten-year incarceration), put the question directly before the substitute and “locum tenens” (guardian) of the Patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius, in Moscow: “As the Soviet authority is antichrist, can the Orthodox Church be in union with an antichrist authority and pray for her successes and be joyful with her joys?” 

 

Metropolitan Sergius began to laugh and brushed it off: “Well, what antichrist is here?” This was the important, fateful, decisive divergence, after which in 1927, occurred the final schism. Those who defined the Soviet authority as an authority of antichrist (that is, a theomachistic power) were not morally able to accept (not by political consideration, but by religious conscience), that in order to retain their “full autonomy” guaranteed by the “constitution” of the USSR, the Russian Orthodox Church would “only spiritually” submit to Satan.

But those who did not agree with these moral motives (either from conviction or fear), followed Metropolitan Sergius, and today are following “Patriarch” Alexei, “being joyful in the joys” of the theomachistic despotism, “praying for the success of this absolute power, offering the gratitude of the whole nation for the consideration of the needs of the Orthodox population,” disclaiming before the whole world the facts of former and present persecutions of the true Orthodox Christians, also defining martyrs as “political criminals” and “upholders of black deeds,” considering the established relations between a theomachistic and despotic State and the Orthodox Church (which must be the Pure Bride of Christ) to be “ideal” and calling the head of the theomachistic, antichrist state, Stalin, the “chosen, of God.” 

 

When Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, first entered this disastrous path of “new religious politics” (as he himself called it), there came from all corners of Russia a great many “epistles” from the hierarchy, the clergy and laymen, written with tears and the heart’s blood, attempting to persuade him to refuse the planned path. 

 

A multitude of delegations from different dioceses traveled to Moscow and on their knees, crying, they begged him to rectify this fatal mistake. Out of prisons, exile, and concentration camps the protesting voices of confessors of faith and martyrs reached the ears of Metropolitan Sergius. 

 

One could judge the volume, depth and moral strength of the protestors by their numbers and their reserved, spiritual gravity. Among the protestors were the most remarkable church figures in Russia: Metropolitan Peter, who was arrested and exiled, but who did not renounce his rights as legitimate First Prelate of the Russian Orthodox Church—Guardian of the throne of the Patriarch; Metropolitan Agafangel, first deputy substitute to the Patriarch; Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, substitute (deputy) to Metropolitan Peter; Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich, also deputy to Metropolitan Peter; Metropolitan Kyrill of Kazan, much respected by Orthodox Russia; Archbishop Ilarion, the famous associate of Patriarch Tikhon; Archbishop Pachomy of Chernigov, Bishop Victor of Glazov, Bishop Varlaam of Perm; Bishop Eugene of Rostov, Bishop Damaskin of Glukhov, Bishop Basil of Priluska, Bishop Alexei of Voronezh, Bishop lerofey of Nikolsk, Vicar-Bishop Ilarion of Smolensk, Bishop Dimitry of Gdov; Bishop Sergei of Narva, Bishop Maxim of Serpukhov, the Bishops Gabriel, Averky, Nektary, Theodore, Phillip, Stephan, Peter and other bishops, which were in exile, prisons, politically isolated and in concentration camps. 

 

Among the protestors were also the best representatives of the clergy and lay theologians: professor Paul Florensky, professor Theodore Andreyev, former president of the Petersburg Religious-Philosophical Society; professor C.A. Askoldov, professor A. I. Brilliantov, the well-known Russian philosopher; professor M. A. Meier, the renowned publisher of the “Religious-Philosophical Library”; professor M. A. Noveselov; professor V.N. Finke, deacon-docent W.W. Finne, well-known philosopher professor A. F. Losev; professor S. S. Abramovitch-Baranovsky; professor D. I. Abramovitch, professor W. L. Komarovitch, Professor A. N. Kolosov, professor-philosopher Dr. M. N. Marschevtsky, and many other professors. Also included are the remarkable archpriests: Father Basil Veryuschsky, Father Sergei Tikhomirov, Father Valentin Sventitsky, Father Alexander Sidorov, Father Sergei Metchev, Father Victor Dobronravov, Father Nikifor Strelnikov, Father Nikolai Prozorov, Father Alexander Kremishansky, Father Nicolai Piskanovsky, Father Sergei Alexiev, Father Anatoly Schurakovsky, and a great many others. (Note: the above mentioned names are only of those, who were shot, tortured and lost.) The protest and entreaty by the best representatives of Russian Orthodoxy, who gave witness to their confession of faith through martyrdom, did not help. 

 

Metropolitan Sergius violated the fundamental rule of the Orthodox Church, the foundation of the Holy Orthodox canons (specifically the 34th Apostolic canon, according to which the first bishop must not do anything without consulting with all the rest of the bishops) - he refused vocally, in writing and in print, to heed the voices of the protestors and he silenced the clergy who were in disagreement with him, with the most horrible bans, declaring all those disagreeing with his “new church politics” to be “counter-revolutionaries,” and by this handing them over to torture by the organs of the GPU. 

 

After all those who openly protested were “liquidated” by the punitive organs of the theomachistic state (that is, were shot, tortured, sent into exile), the true Orthodox Church went into the catacombs. 

 

In obvious further violation of the holy canons, Metropolitan Sergius, with the help of the despotic state, became patriarch. After his death, with the help of the same means, the head of the Soviet church (let us call it that now) became “Patriarch” Alexei. (Note: to the question of canonical violations by the Soviet church, review this wonderful book— Collection of Documentary Facts by Archpriest Michael Polsky: “The canonical situation of the highest church authority in the USSR and abroad.”)

 

 The Soviet church violated not only the holy canons; she flouted also the fundamental dogma of Orthodoxy, that is: the Dogma regarding the Church. Can one apply to the Soviet church, after all her “deeds” and “words,” (as the “words” of a church are her “deeds”), the words of the holy dogma: the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Does it not now sound blasphemous? Because in her there is no oneness, no holiness, no universality, no Apostolic spirit. 

 

Not a complete unity, but a total conglomerate, not a spiritual organism of the “body of Christ,” but only a formal church organization, in which there is no hint to holiness (because holiness and fundamental falsehood are incompatible), first and foremost, there is no Apostolic spirit of love and zealousness toward purity and truth—that is what constitutes the concept of today’s “Soviet church.” 

 

This church committed something even more terrifying than violating the canons and dogmas: She betrayed the Holy Spirit, lying before the whole world, that Russia, now called the USSR, is not being ruled by an impious government of a God-fighting, totalitarian power of an anti-Christian spirit, which detests and persecutes Christ and the true Orthodox Church loyal to Him to the end, but by “a chosen one of the Lord, which leads our fatherland to prosperity and glory.” 

 

“Who is able to listen with a calm heart to this shameful, deceitful praise?” wrote the first Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastassy, on this topic in an epistle, “where the subservience of man borders already on blasphemy. Really—can one tolerate, that a person stained with blood from his head to his feet, covered with crimes like a leprosy and poisoned deeply with the poison of godlessness, could be named the chosen of the Lord,’ could be destined to lead our homeland to prosperity and glory?” “Does this not mean,” continues Metropolitan Anastassy, “to bring slander and abuse unto God the Most High Himself, Who, in such case, would be responsible for all the evil, which is going on already for many years in our land of Bolshevik authority headed by Stalin?” “The atom bomb,” concludes Metropolitan Anastassy,” and all other destructive means invented by present day technology, are indeed less dangerous than the moral disintegration, which the highest representatives of the civil and church authorities put into the Russian soul with their example. The breaking down of the atom brings with it only physical devastation and destruction, whereas the corruption of the mind, heart and will entails the spiritual death of a whole nation, after which there is no Resurrection.” 

 

What indeed is the nature of that “church authority, "which brings “moral disintegration” into the Russian soul and the “corruption of the mind, heart and will, ” which brings with it the “spiritual death of a whole nation, ” after which there is “no Resurrection”? “ 

 

The Soviet church”— writes S. P. in his wonderful booklet: “Concerning the Church in the USSR” (Pans, 1947), “is an establishment of the Soviet anti-Christian totalitarian state, carrying out its instructions, serving its goals, not being able to freely judge, nor freely pray, nor freely observe the sacrament of confession”...only those who have never read or deeply penetrated the deep Christian meaning of the Canons can consider “Patriarch” Alexei as “the guardian of the Canons.” This deep meaning is, first of all, to be free from all human influence “for the pleasure (or good will) of the Holy Spirit” and inspired obedience to His suggestions .... “therefore, what Alexei can maintain, of course in the welcome and convenient boundaries of the Soviet political police is the traditional exterior of historical Orthodoxy.” 

 

Analyzing the motives and the “ecclesiastical” reasoning of the highest Soviet church authority, Mr. S. P. writes in the same work: “For what reason was this done?”
 

1) ln order that by submissiveness to anti- Christ he might cancel or at least relax the persecution of believers, the clergy and churches: in order “to purchase” a respite at the cost of cooperation with bolshevism in Russia and abroad.
 

2) From fear that, perhaps, Antichrist came to an understanding with the Vatican about a final eradication of Orthodoxy: In order “to have Antichrist on his side" in the fight with Roman Catholicism.
 

“But there is no doubt,” writes S. P. further, “ that the future of Orthodoxy is not being determined by compromises with Antichrist, but indeed by that heroic stance and confession, from which they (that is, the representatives of the Soviet church authority) so treacherously disavowed themselves.” 

 

In conclusion Mr. S. P. brings forward a clear, exact, simple and convincing point with which one can only agree: 

 

“The Orthodoxy which subordinated itself to the Soviets and became an instrument of the world’s anti- Christian temptation—is not Orthodoxy, but a seductive heresy of anti-Christianity, wrapped in the torn garment of historical Orthodoxy.” 

 

To any unprejudiced Russian Orthodox man it is quite clear how the holy Metropolitan Phillip would have acted, if he were now in Moscow and head of the Russian Church. Having exposed the Orthodox Czar in his evil deeds, would he not also expose a more cruel god-fighting rule doing clearly satanic deeds? For professing truth is no less obligatory for the Orthodox Church than professing faith. The path of Metropolitan Philip is a true path, and a betrayal of this path is a betrayal of the spirit of Orthodoxy itself. 

 

True to its father the devil, the “father of lies,” the Soviet government made falsehood her foundation. A “government-organized falsehood” is a phenomena absolutely new in history. “Separated” from the government, the Soviet church followed the footsteps of the Soviet government and presented to the world: a “church-organized falsehood.” In No. 10 of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop Alexander writes: “and today Moscow, the heart of Russia, is a microcosm of all “Holy Russia.” One can agree with this only, by understanding that the microcosm is a “distorting mirror.” Characterizing “Patriarch” Alexei, this same Archbishop Alexander writes: “Enlightened by the Holy Spirit, made wise by his prelate’s experience, our Most Holy testifies by his patriarchal activity, that the present is not the time for fiercely exposing as did the holy John the Forerunner, but it is a time for mercy, of healing the feeble souls according to the testaments of the venerable Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov.” 

 

Thus writes a Soviet hierarch in the USSR. But the people think differently. Having escaped from the Soviet hell, Mr. G. in his article, “Voice of a New Emigrant,” writes: the people came to the conviction that the great woe which befell them is God’s punishment for their transgressions. The healing of people begins by raising religion to such a height, on which she stood only during the first centuries of Christianity. But for this it is necessary that the spiritual pastor is ready to go to his death for the truth, and not bend his soul—communism is going to be defeated not by the atom bomb, but by the cross—and Stalin understood this better than others. At the present, as never before, the clergy needs devotees and zealots who without wavering, would go themselves and lead the people, if it becomes necessary, into battle for the glory of Christ. And the people will follow such pastors, for the fields are ready. That is why at present our main enemy is not communism, but the priesthood, which went over into his (Satan’s) service, for it indeed does the work of Cain—We would like, in the name of all Russians living in Italy, to call upon the clergy who crossed over into the camp of antichrist, with an open letter...” 

 

The hypocritical duplicity of Archbishop Alexander is quite clear. Why “is now not the time” for the fiery accusations of St. John the Forerunner, calling for repentance? Nobody to accuse? Nothing to expose? No one there to repent? There is no need for repentance? And if our times are mostly a time of mercy and tolerance, then why not call Stalin himself to it? But perhaps, today only the executioners and not the victims “deserve” mercy and tolerance? The venerable Sergius of Radonezh and venerable Seraphim of Sarov never gave such testaments, for they were teaching with the spirit of truth, and not with a hypocritical love, which especially in the name of “mercy and tolerance” does not exclude also “fiery accusations” - one of the best means to heal souls. 

 

The hypocritical duplicity, equally with subservience and servility, is becoming the most characteristic feature of the representatives of the Soviet church and their defenders abroad. More and more often they speak, write and proclaim on the subject of love, tolerance and forgiveness, about not condemning, about the necessity to end the disputes. This new image of “church Tolstoyism” with its new sermon of “non-resistance to evil” not only by force, but also with denouncing words—is the most unbearable falsehood and deception. 

 

In the article: “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor” by Dostoyevsky (Analytic Notes. Munich, 1947), John Shakhovskoy (today a bishop in America) wrote: “Christ in His silence, which is louder than all exclamations and more significant than all philosophies, approaches His profound enemy and kisses him, kisses his humanness, through the prattle of all his evil and false words. If there would not be this love, who of us would live? The silent love suffering in the world of truth, the love towards us by the truth suffering because of us,—what could be more beautiful than this? Maybe even in heaven, perhaps, there will not be such beauty, for there—is its own home of heavenly beauty. Here she is a serving handmaid, there she is the mistress of the universe.” First of all, for an Orthodox consciousness these words are absolutely unacceptable: “even in heaven there will perhaps not be such beauty.” Only a poet, who got carried away, could express himself so, but not an Orthodox monk. The beauty in heaven—is a most perfect beauty, including in her all the beauty found on this earth. 

 

What concerns the fundamental thought of Bishop John, seeing a beauty “beyond that in heaven” in the kiss of Christ to antichrist (for the Grand Inquisitor in the “legend” by Dostoyevsky expresses antichrist’s ideas), is totally unorthodox. This thought is not accidental and is one of the fundamental thoughts— beliefs of this “exalted poet-bishop.” The kiss is the “legend,” the false idea of the rationalist Ivan Karamazov. Christ could never kiss antichrist, because the truth can not kiss falsehood “Super-Christian” love is a spiritual deception. The devil may seduce by taking up the appearance of an “Angel of Light”—Satan can tempt, that by “denying the truth of Christ,” he “awaits the highest truth more passionately than the seraphim” and is dangerous especially because while he is tempting the soul, the mind perceives him as holy.” (Minsky: “My Demon”). 

 

As Christ cannot kiss antichrist, so a true Orthodox Christian cannot, for example, kiss the “humanness” of Stalin “through the babble of his mean and false words.” We see true Orthodoxy and genuine Christian love in the testament of Metropolitan Anastassy: “If you see falsehood and hypocrisy unmask them before all, even if they are clothed in purple and fine linen.’’(Speech at the nomination of the bishop of Serpukhov in 1906.) 

 

The idea “not to resist evil by unmasking” is very widespread at present. “Don’t anyone argue, don’t anyone unmask or accuse the other,” citing the prophet Hosea, the same Bishop John Shakhovskoy (the most “abundant in love” out of all “spiritual” children of the Moscow Patriarch Alexei) writes in his epigraph in his “Church Diary.” 

 

Why not accuse and why not unmask? Altogether never, or only “now?” When is it “not the time for the fieiy accusation by St. John the Forerunner?” 

 

Arguments and exposure always were and will exist: as at the time of the Savior's life on earth, as during the time of the “Acts of the holy Apostles,” as during the Ecumenical councils, and the duration of all the history of the Christian Church, until the very last day of world history, when there shall be false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, false Christs, and finally—Anti-Christ himself, who must be unmasked and with whom it will be necessary to argue. 

 

Further, Bishop John Shakhovskoy, in his “Church Diary,” speaking of being zealous for the purity of the Orthodox Faith, writes: “Regrettably, it (this zealousness) often comes down these days to an open frame of mind, which is clearly expressed in the Gospels concerning the first preparatory week of Great Lent. The believing souls shrink from these cold waves and icy splashes of our “infallibility.” But the truth is, that all we Orthodox people are now sinful and none of us can wrap himself with the toga of infallibility.” 

 

What relation has the Gospel of the preparatory week, where it speaks about the Publican and the Pharisee, with our arguments and accusations, dictated by sincere and ardent devotion toward the purity of the Orthodox Faith? Why mix up the concept of “unmasking the mistakes in questions of faith” with the concept of “moral condemnation of the sins of our neighbor*? And why the necessity of slandering the confessors, that “they wrap themselves with the toga of infallibility”? 

 

This attitude (method) is not new. Let us recall the process of the trial of St. Maximus the Confessor. He was accused of the same thing that Bishop John accused the contemporary confessors and zealots for the purity of the faith. When we, members of the Catacomb Church, after breaking free from Soviet hell, are unmasking “the patriarchs” Sergius and Alexei for their unnatural union with the antichrist authority, and Metropolitan Theophilus and Bishop John for “bowing with a son’s devotion before the labor and deeds (?!) of patriarch Alexei,” then this is not pharisaism and we don’t wrap ourselves in the toga of infallibility. We speak clearly, plainly, sincerely before the face of God, from the depth of our religious conscience, that we morally cannot “thank” the Soviet government, nor “renounce” the confessors and martyrs, by calling them “accomplices of black deeds,” nor regard the relation of the Orthodox Church with the God-fighting government as “ideal,” nor be joyous with the “joys” of the persecutors of any religion, and mostly the Orthodox Church, nor regard Stalin as the “Lord’s chosen one”, as the Soviet church finds it possible to do, say and even declare. 

 

Our religious conscience (and absolutely not our political conscience, as our enemies slander us), does not permit us not only to “bow with a son’s adoration” before the labor and deeds of ‘patriarch’ Alexei, but even to watch silently and listen, as others “bow” and defend the Soviet church. 

 

If we are wrong — expose us, give an substantive answer, show us that we are wrong, but don’t slander us, don’t call us Pharisees. Not at all with a feeling of proud superiority, what you are claiming us to be, but with a feeling of sincere love toward Truth, and with a feeling of horror and holy anger before the falsehood-this is what we want to share with all brothers in Christ, by our tragic and agonizing experience, the view of evil without a mask. 

 

Sometimes we, who escaped from “there” are being accused, that our evaluations of the Soviet government and the Soviet church are subjective and are to be explained by those psychological traumas (that is of suffering) which we had to endure there. 

 

Such objection represents a typically coarse mistake of logic, called Argumentum ad hominem (substitution of logical proof by psychological argument). Yes, we lived through very heavy suffering for our exposing the violence and falsehood, which we saw in theory and in the practice of the government and the Soviet church. But it is not the feeling of personal offense or insult and not the desire for vengeance for what we lived through that guides our pronouncements here, abroad. We thank God for the hard experience we endured, we repeat after St. John Chrysostom — “glory to God for all things!” and we never summon anyone to vengeance. 

 

But also, we cannot and dare not be silent here, where there are still so many people who absolutely do not understand the mystical essence of Bolshevism and even do not know many of the facts committed “there.” Our accusation of the Soviet government and Soviet “church” is based on objective documented facts. We cite the actual words of the “patriarchs” Sergius and Alexei, about the “joys”—“gratitude,” of the “abettors of black deeds,” of the “ideal interrelation,” with the “chosen by the Lord.” 

 

To these objective facts we like to add also our personal testimonies, testimonies by believing Orthodox people, for whom the fate of the Orthodox Church is dearer than life, which are testimonies of our religious conscience before the face of God. What have “traumas” to do with anything? These “traumas” (that is, experienced knowledge of Soviet reality) help us to unmask faster and more accurately the cunningly disguised enemy. If “there” we unmasked falsehood and force, then here, abroad, we unmasked mistakes and thoughtlessness. Such mistakes and thoughtlessness, we, of course, do not see in the Soviet exarchs, (in them we see only exclusively falsehood and betrayal), but in those who “only spiritually” (!?) identify themselves as “children of the Moscow Patriarchate,” “with the stipulation of keeping their full autonomy.” 

 

Such mistakes we see, for example in Bishop John Shakhovskoy who decreed the activity of the Soviet church as “a holy and humble affair,” and therefore does not find words to express “sufficient gratitude” to the prelates and pastors in the Russian land (who in their turn give their gratitude to the “chosen by the Lord” Stalin for his “concern for Orthodoxy”). 

 

Recently we had the occasion to meet an Orthodox priest who escaped from East Germany, where he spent approximately three years in the “jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.” While he recounted how the Orthodox priests who did not accept the Moscow Patriarchate suffered cruelly and how, after a summons for a “discussion” to the NKVD (now MVD), all Orthodox priests (including the speaker) “could not refuse to enter the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and entering, were obliged to carry out also the orders of the MVD. His admissions sounded like repentance. One must not accuse the repentant and unmask him for his faint-heartedness. So all of us who listened to him were sadly silent. But when he began to justify himself, that he also “suffered,” for it was “hard for him to submit” and that his “moral sufferings” were greater, than the sufferings of the arrested and those suffering “only physically” —then it became necessary to interrupt and explain, that the “moral suffering” of those who submitted to the antichrist authority is not a merit and justification, but only a legitimate, deserved punishment of the “suffering of conscience.” 

 

To put to one’s credit the “suffering of conscience” — is morally impossible, for then one should justify also Judas’ suffering with his suicide. Christian morality gives us a different example — an image, which should be a pattern for our behavior after the sin of renouncing Christ — this is the image of “bitterly weeping” in the repentance of Apostle Peter. 

 

The defenders of the Soviet church point out sometimes that the “patriarchs” Sergius and Alexei chose compromises with the government for church-economy in order to avert the entire destruction of the Church in Russia. 

 

This assertion is utterly erroneous. 

 

Until 1927, the Orthodox Church qualitatively only grew from persecutions (as it always has and will do, for the “blood of the martyrs — is the seed of Christianity”). The Soviet government therefore changed their tactic of struggle which only proved the invincibility of the Orthodox faith to persecution and oppression. The “patriarchs” Sergius and Alexei helped the Soviet authorities in its fight against the Church. During the War, if there would not have been com-promises by Sergius and Alexei, the Soviet government would have been forced to make great concessions to the non-compromising Church of martyrs and confessors. Profoundly accurately and correctly writes one Archpaster abroad (A Letter from a Pastor to a Pastor, 1947, Paris ),on this occasion: “As a result of the compromise with the authority by Metropolitan Sergius and the total enslavement of Patriarch Alexei, the authority sold their compromises of the Church for a very high price, the penetration into the very structure of the Church’s management.” 

 

Now the Soviet authority is able, while not giving up on their primary mission—the fight with religion, to continue it and at the same time permit the restoration of churches and monasteries, permitting these churches to fill with worshipers. The reins of the entire management over these churches, these monasteries, and these worshippers lie entirely in the hands of the Soviet authority through the church-administrative apparatus utterly obedient to them. 

 

If all bishops in 1927, would have followed Metropolitan Sergius—the Orthodox faith would have been at present in great decline. Only thanks to the confessors and the martyrdom, principally of the episcopate which did not follow Metropolitan Sergius— there exists to this day in the USSR, the invincible and indestructible Catacomb Church, which spiritually feeds the truly Orthodox people. 

 

Soviet propaganda has tried to convince the whole world that there does not exist any Catacomb Church in the USSR, and has succeeded in persuading some in this. 

 

To disclaim the presence of the Catacomb Church means absolutely not to know and not understand what is going on at present in our homeland. If there is no doubt, that it is the majority of people who hate the Soviet authority in the USSR, then it is even more clear that the majority of truly believing Orthodox people do not recognize the Soviet church. Pointing out the overcrowded churches—does not disperse the above-mentioned. The Soviet churches are overcrowded because there are altogether too few churches today in the USSR; during the war and after, the number of believers increased tremendously, despite all the efforts and cunning of antichrist propaganda. The demand for an exact account about the Catacomb church with the naming of names and places — is either utter naiveté, or extreme thoughtlessness, or outright provocation. In the “secret” (we call them Catacomb) churches there are also secret bishops and secret priests and secret silence, but there are too few, in order to feed all (spiritually) who cannot bring themselves to attend the Alexeyev churches. Therefore the secret church services take place far apart. But the common prayers (sometimes called the gathering around the candle) mainly with the reading of Akathists take place very often and draw a huge crowd of worshippers. Besides, the Catacomb church restored the custom of the first centuries of Christianity — during the period of persecution, permitting the faithful to keep reverently in their houses a small part of the Holy Sacraments in order to have the possibility to receive communion during minutes of mortal danger and before tortures. The whole fullness of unspeakable, spiritual beauty of the invisible, secret Russian Catacomb Church will become obvious to the world only then, when the God-fighting Soviet government and the Soviet church, spiritually enslaved by them, will disappear. 

 

“Freedom of prayer and freedom of sermons” do not exist in the Soviet church. The Soviet church demands full loyalty to the Soviet government. This “loyalty” is to be understood quite peculiarly. So, for instance, it is not permitted to speak the truth of what is happening in the USSR...for that would be a “political crime.” One must not criticize atheism and materialism, for that will also be a “political crime.” One cannot criticize and discredit the Soviet church, for even this will be definitely a “political crime.” Participation in a Catacomb Church is very cruelly punished. One is only permitted to pray for the success of the government authority (that is, for the God-fighting, totalitarian power). To pray for the softening of evil hearts, for insight for the strayed or for delivery of the church from persecutions—is categorically forbidden. Also it is forbidden to pray for those in prisons and exiles. To pray for the persecutors is permitted (only for their success). But for the persecuted—it is not permitted. Anti-religious lectures are being held everywhere throughout the USSR, but apologetical (politically in-different) discussions are forbidden. To the declaration by the propagandists of atheism, “science proved that there is no God”—the priests are not permitted to object, and their silence is being explained by these same propagandists of atheism as “the helplessness of darkness and ignorance in the fight with science.” The Soviet church submits to these impudent demands and is silent. But then, truly by “silence is God betrayed.” In spite of the horrible terror, among the truly and strongly Orthodox believers one can find sometimes such people, who cannot co-exist with the constant falsehood, especially if this falsehood violates their religious conscience (for example the acknowledgement of Stalin as “God’s chosen”). Such Orthodox people wish to be confessors and martyrs for the faith of Christ. But then the Soviet church begins to brand them “political criminals” and “abettors of black deeds,” for to be a confessor and martyr is not only forbidden in the God-fighting Soviet state by the government, but also by the Soviet church which is “separate" from it. 

 

After all the above stated about the nature and character of the Soviet church the question guises natu rally: Does this church have grace?

Let us look with special attention at what is said in defense of the grace of the Soviet church. The “patriarch” Alexei was acknowledged!?) by all Eastern Patriarchs, consequently he is right and the church he is heading has grace,—say some. 

 

The question of the acknowledgement of the Soviet church by the Ecumenical Patriarch—remains unclear. The relation of the latter with the Moscow Patriarchate, we are deeply convinced, is based on ignorance, on incomprehension by the Eastern patriarchs of the essence of the Soviet church. The mistakes of the Eastern patriarchs in their attitudes toward holy Patriarch Tikhon show more clearly today14 that also the further relations of the Eastern Patriarchs with the Soviet government does not guarantee against new mistakes. If we saw mistakes and thoughtlessness in relation toward the Moscow Patriarchate from the side of the Russian Episcopate (for instance from the group of Metropolitan Theophilus [the O.C.A.] ), then mistakes are even more possible from the Eastern Patriarchs, who are much more removed from Russian life in their spiritual attitude. 

 

Relations, which are based on ignorance of the true facts, is not yet recognition. In other words, let us repeat, the question of recognition is still unclear. 

 

But even if all Eastern Patriarchs acknowledged falsehood for truth, the falsehood would not thereby become truth. Truth does not cease to be truth, because even some “chosen” renounce her and perhaps even almost all will renounce her, which might become possible in the last days. (“The Son of Man will come, but will He find faith on earth?” Luke 18:8.) Therefore, remembering the example of St. Maximus the Confessor (against whom were the “synod” and patriarchs and the Emperor), we cannot acknowledge as sufficient only the formal approach, to the settling of religious truth. 

 

There are many more serious and stronger considerations, at first glance, in defense of the grace of the Soviet church. 

 

These arguments are as follows: 

 

The exhausted, wretched, unfortunate Russian people go to the open Soviet churches to obtain consolation there. So, because of these many millions of people who bring into the church their faith, their prayers, their sorrows, their tears, perhaps grace is being retained in the Soviet church and the sacraments are performed despite that the highest church hierarchy had sinned, by entering into a compromise with the Soviet government. Those coming into the Soviet churches hear the services, where the words from the Gospel are being read, they pray before the miracle-working icons, being touched by the wonderful hymns, they repent of their sins and approach the Holy Chalice in fear of God in order to receive the Holy Sacraments. For the sake of these, for the sake of such simple, believing people, who do not understand the complicated and fine theological questions, who do not understand and often do not know anything about the jurisdictional conflicts among the priesthood, maybe for these the Holy Sacraments are being performed. Will the merciful Lord not give to these simple, naive, guileless people, who’s faith is that of children, some solace? 

 

And again... 

 

“We don’t need any political discussions, we don’t need any explanations about jurisdictions, but better tell us, Batushka, about the heavenly Jerusalem,” these simple believing people sometimes say (according to the testimonies of a priest). “At the Last Judgment the Lord will question us not about abstract truths, but about whether we visited the sick, the imprisoned, did we clothe the naked, did we feed and give drink to the hungry and thirsty,”—say others. (The words of one “simply believing^ professor). 

 

Let us try to answer all these objections. First of all: Grace and the performing of Sacraments do not depend on the “merit or unworthiness” of the partakers. The “worthiness” or “unworthiness” depends only upon the effect these sacraments have on their souls. For what purpose were the holy canons and holy dogmas established? Why then was there a fight with the heresies? 

 

In a graceless church, grace does not appear simply because some believing, but deceived people enter the church. Into the “living” and “renovationist church” sometimes also came “simple believing people” who did not understand the “ fine points of theology” and absolutely did not understand anything in questions of jurisdictions. Do you really assume that the holy Sacraments were performed there for them? 

If the “exhausted, wretched, unfortunate” Russian people “go in great sorrow and in tears, craving consolation” into the Soviet churches, then they, of course, will receive consolation there. But what kind of consolation is this? Spiritual or mental? Beneficial (full of grace) or just psychological? Consolation through the holy sacraments of grace or through a simple moral “catharsis” ? Because even confession can be only psychological (which has been studied through psychoanalysis), but perhaps it can also be the sacrament of confession. One can pray and cry, and be distressed over sins in one’s own house and receive from God consolation and compassion and forgiveness for many transgressions. That which depends on the person himself, on the strength of his prayers, and the sincerity of his confession, he will receive as in his own house, so in the graceless church. But precisely, what depends on the grace of the holy Sacraments, a church of grace, and her hierarchy—he cannot receive in a Soviet church, if she is without grace. 

 

The Soviet church did not only retain the raiment of the Russian Orthodox Church (i.e., the outer image of the church, the external form of the services), but also her body (the ceremonial side and the formal church organization) and even her soul (the mental experiences (perceptions of praying), but not the spirit of Orthodoxy, the spirit of Christ’s Truth, which revives the soul and body. For it is said: “Do not quench the spirit,” (Thess. 5:19). A graceless church is no threat for people with soul (for they receive the consolation of their soul and the satisfaction which they exclusively seek), but only for spiritual people, who seek the purely spiritual, grace-filled consolation in the holy mysteries — do not find it. Sincere tears bring also a sincere consolation of the soul in Soviet churches. Aesthetic perceptions of the grandeur of the church and the beautiful church singing—bring also aesthetic enjoyments in these churches, but spiritual tears thirsting for the mysterious beneficial help from above—cannot be wiped dry in the Soviet church. That is why spiritual people, “living in the church” and not just entering her— suffocate spiritually in Soviet churches, because they cannot ignore the falsehood and deceit, lies and other vileness of spiritual “desolation” in the holy place. 

 

Pointing out, that the “simple, believing people” do not understand the complicated theological questions and the finer jurisdictional points—is no contribution from these “simple believers,” nor defense for the grace of the Soviet church. 

 

To understand and sense grace, it is not at all necessary to be educated in theological and philosophical questions. On the contrary, too much education often hinders a person to understand the simplicity of the truth of grace (as we see in the example of Berdyaev, Mereshkovsky and others). 

 

An honest, chaste mind, who does not depend on himself, but feeds on the mind of Christ, and the loving heart filled with the love of Christ—these are the Orthodox conditions of sobriety and discernment, helping the believing church-going man to correctly understand all questions. He who “lives in the Church” and breathes the aroma of her mysteries, who has in himself even a drop of spirituality, cannot misunderstand the “complex theological questions who seek the purely spiritual, grace-filled consolation in the holy mysteries — do not find it. Sincere tears bring also a sincere consolation of the soul in Soviet churches. Aesthetic perceptions of the grandeur of the church and the beautiful church singing—bring also aesthetic enjoyments in these churches, but spiritual tears thirsting for the mysterious beneficial help from above—cannot be wiped dry in the Soviet church. That is why spiritual people, “living in the church” and not just entering her— suffocate spiritually in Soviet churches, because they cannot ignore the falsehood and deceit, lies and other vileness of spiritual “desolation” in the holy place. Pointing out, that the “simple, believing people” do not understand the complicated theological questions and the finer jurisdictional points—is no contribution from these “simple believers,” nor defense for the grace of the Soviet church. To understand and sense grace, it is not at all necessary to be educated in theological and philosophical questions. On the contrary, too much education often hinders a person to understand the simplicity of the truth of grace (as we see in the example of Berdyaev, Mereshkovsky and others). 

 

An honest, chaste mind, who does not depend on himself, but feeds on the mind of Christ, and the loving heart filled with the love of Christ—these are the Orthodox conditions of sobriety and discernment, helping the believing church-going man to correctly understand all questions. He who “lives in the Church” and breathes the aroma of her mysteries, who has in himself even a drop of spirituality, cannot misunderstand the “complex theological questions and the “jurisdictional subtleties,” because indeed in these subtleties it is determined—where there is Truth and where falsehood. 

 

To disassociate oneself principally from any politics is also impossible for an Orthodox person, for religion and politics are at the present time organically blended. The question—with Christ or against Christ, has today a political meaning, because it commits one to protest against those political systems which have as their main goal the destruction of Christianity. Whoever denies at present time the necessity of political discussions (reasoning) and jurisdictional explanations (interpretations)—he denies the necessity to distinguish the wolves in sheep’s clothing and to find out—where is Christ and where antichrist. 

 

All of antichrist’s activity will carry undoubtedly also a political character, even if only because without political authority he cannot complete his work. The path “to the heavenly Jerusalem” begins on earth, where even the greatest holy men did not deny the necessity of Christian politics and personally were always within the confines of a strictly defined Church community, which today is called “church jurisdiction.” 

 

On the Day of Judgment, the Lord will ask not only whether we fed the hungry, but mainly in who’s name and why we did it: for God, for our personal glory or in the interests of antichrist? 

 

For if you, like the communists, will feed only those hungry, who for a piece of earthly bread will renounce the Heavenly Bread — then what reward will be yours for that from the Lord?

The Spirit breathes where It wishes. The Almighty Lord can when He wishes disturb the order of nature. 

 

The Grace of the Holy Spirit can emerge everywhere. The children playing the holy Eucharist—and the Holy Spirit suddenly performed a holy sacrament. Laughing and mocking at the Christians, one heathen at the circus parodied the holy sacrament of baptism, and suddenly—the holy sacrament happened. The Lord can create a miracle also in the Soviet church—and perform there the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. But just because of that, we cannot acknowledge either the children’s game, or the circus, or the Soviet church as being a constant establishment of grace. 

 

Knowing the essence of the Soviet government (the spirit of antichrist) and the essence of the Soviet church (collaboration with antichrist), we do not dare refuse to doubt the grace of that church. And can an Orthodox Christian approach the Holy Chalice with doubt? But why are we saying “we doubt,” and not saying simply “no”? Because in deference of the possibility of retaining grace also in the Soviet church for a time—there is one more consideration. This consideration is being expressed by one of the most remarkable contemporary Archpastors (see “Letter of a Pastor to a Pastor,” Collection Troitsa, 1947, Paris). 

 

“The life of the Church is always a process... when the Church of Christ detached herself from the Church of the Old Testament, it was also a long drawn out process, having many phases. Ananias and Caiaphas on one side, the Apostles and their closest followers on the other side; those were landmarks of two immediately recognizable opposite camps. But in the Sanhedrin were Joseph of Arimathaea, Nicodemus and Gamaliel, who later on became martyrs for Christ, and the Apostles themselves were together in the synagogue everyday (Acts 2:46), and this was a temple led by Ananias and Caiaphas, and already after Pentecost, that is, when the Apostles were already filled with the Holy Spirit. 

 

“The question being decided through these processes stands before each person. “Patriarch” Alexei and his closest collaborators clearly decided it for themselves: they were in full, unequivocally acknowledged unity with the God-fighting authority and against the martyrs of Christ. But the rest, all those people filling the churches, are they indeed with the “patriarch” in this question? No, they do not participate in the council and their actions do not participate in the business of the Patriarchate, that is, in that dark side of their business, which binds them with the enemies of God and separates from Christ. And if they do not formally separate themselves from the patriarch and his clergy, then this is only because of external reasons, because this business is not yet ripened at this moment, like Apostle John, the same who later on will call the synagogue which did not acknowledge Christ—“Satan’s assemblage,” but who originally came to it for prayers together with Apostle Peter (Acts 3:1).” 

 

The thoughts expressed here are extremely serious. That the church fell away from God and turned into an “assemblage of Satan” is a process, with this one cannot disagree. However, the Soviet church has entered the path, which is leading her to this “assemblage” — in this there can be no doubt whatsoever. A church, which is in an “ideal” relation with a God-fighting government of absolute power, which puts the business of antichrist as her fundamental mission; a church which disavowed herself from the “pillar and the affirmation” of the truth of Christ—the confession of faith and martyrdom and which is calling us to “deeds” of servility for humanity and the blasphemous church-organized falsehood: a church which called a leader of worldly antichrist forces, Stalin, “the chosen of the Lord”—has entered undisputedly the frightful way of collaboration with antichrist, which will lead her to the transformation from a church of Christ to the “assemblage of Satan.” 

 

This instills terror in us. And we, the Orthodox Russian people, not predetermining the final trial over the Soviet church, a trial, which by the “ruling” of the Holy Spirit will be carried out in its time by the Russian Orthodox Synod, we must speak out clearly and determinedly: 

 

We refuse any kind of relation, whatever it may be, with the Soviet church, for we doubt that she has grace.