AN OPEN LETTER TO THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING
ARCHIMANDRITE PANTELEIMON INTO SCHISM

February 12/25, 1987
St. Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow;
Holy Iveron Icon of the Theotokos

And whosover shall offend one of these little ones that believe in Me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea (Mark, 9, 42).

...there should be no schism in the body; but that the members have the same care for one another. And whether one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it (1Cor. 12:25-26).

For the past year I have been incredulously observing as many innocent people were being led to the brink of spiritual disaster by clergymen whose actions cause one to believe that they are wolves in sheep's clothing. Many good people have been deceived into thinking that they are struggling for purity of the faith while they are in fact bringing about schism which, according to St. John Chrysostom "is a worse evil than falling into heresy."

I must speak of the Panteleimonite Schism (schism indeed, and not defense of Holy Orthodoxy, as some would have us believe), because I find myself accused of charges brought against our Church. The list of "transgressions" committed by the clergy of the Church Abroad literally grows with each passing day. According to one of the documents included in the "information packet" ("TO INDICATE TO ANOTHER HIS ERRORS AND WRONGS IS NOT SCHISM BUT, TO SPEAK SIMPLY, IT IS PUTTING AN UNBRIDLED HORSE BACK INTO HARNESS," unsigned and undated) distributed by St. Nectarios Parish in Seattle, the number has grown to a total of 49!

In a letter by Fr. Neketas Palassis to Metropolitan Vitaly in defense of Fr. Panteleimon (March 28/April 10, 1986) I was branded a "Soviet church sympathizer." Fr. Neketas subsequently apologized to me in writing for "using immoderate language" ( May 8/21, 1986), however, in the various written materials produced by the St. Nectarios Parish, of which Fr. Neketas is rector, their authors continue to imply that I am one of those in our Church who has been charged with the responsibility of arranging a joint celebration of the Millenium of Russia's Baptism, as a prelude to the reunification of the Russian Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate.

The concern of my Church for the spiritual welfare of Orthodox Christians in the Soviet Union and my activities on their behalf are the implicit basis for these charges.

The one lesson that Archimandrite Panteleimon and the leaders of his schismatic movement have learned well from the tragic 70 year history of the Soviet Union is one of propaganda: repeat a lie or half-truth often enough and people will eventually come to believe this lie or half-truth in full or at least partially. This is precisely what the "educators" at St. Nectarios Parish in Seattle, some of the fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the "true Orthodox" clergy of the Boston Deanery and other leaders of the Panteleimonite Schism have been doing for over a year with surprising success. How this is accomplished is clear. Here is one example which I cite from one of the papers (THE CURRENT STATE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA, item No. 15, p. 2, unsigned and undated) included in the St. Nectarios "information packet":

Almost all the bishops of the ROCOR and most of the influencial clergymen seem to have adopted this new nationalism. They seem more concerned with politics than with Christian faith, often seeming to use the Church as a means for the "liberation" of Russia. While in some cases they still have little interest in ecumenical activities, this is not out of principle. Rather, so far they see no advantage for their nationalistic goals in ecumenical contacts, but as their desire for respectability increases and as they draw closer to the Moscow Patriarchate, they can be expected to be drawn into Ecumenism.

The use of such words as "almost", "seem to have", "can be expected" and so on, displays a deliberate attempt to create an impression of things that simply do not exist. If the author of this document is so convinced of the existence of a "new nationalism" in the Russian Church Abroad, whose adherents are more concerned with politics than the Christian faith, why is he not more categorical? Why does he not use words such as "have definitely adopted a new nationalism," instead of "seem to..."? The plain truth is that the author is not sure of the validity of his argument. Such is the method always used by the Soviet state-controlled press to spread disinformation about the United States and other enemies. The second part of the above-mentioned paragraph concerning the "new nationalism" is so incredibly absurd, that I am hard put to find words to react to it. It takes a pretty sick imagination to be able to come up with such an absurdity. Instead of providing concrete facts to back up his charges that the Church Abroad is trying to gain "respectability" and is being drawn into Ecumenism through the Moscow Patriarchate, the author of this sweeping statement uses the ambiguous expression "they can be expected to be drawn into Ecumenism." This is preposterous!

This same method is used by the Panteleimonites in presenting all the "evidence" which they produced in their "information packet" to back up their claim that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has embarked on the path of a dangerous "new nationalism." To show how this "hard evidence" is presented, I will discuss a few of them listed in the above-mentioned document. On page two of Item 15 we read:

1. The increasing tolerance of the Third Wave people in the Church. Priests from the Moscow Patriarchate are now serving in several ROCOR parishes, and are still quite pro-Moscow in their attitudes and public statements in support of the Patriarch. In addition, the monastery at Jordanville seems to have a good number of Third Wave people in it, and an effort reportedly has been made to get the Americans out unless they are totally russified. The influx of these people has significantly changed the atmosphere of the monastery.

I sense here a hint of racism, definitely a dislike for people of the Third Wave. Or is it anti-semitism? Why should the Jordanville Monastery discriminate against anybody if that person is searching for the monastic life? And why shouldn't former priests of the Moscow Patriarchate be allowed to serve in our parishes if they were properly accepted by our bishops? And what does the author mean by claiming that these former priests of the Church in Russia "...are still quite pro-Moscow in their attitude and public statements in support of the Patriarch"? Why is the author not more specific? Why doesn't he give us concrete examples and names of these pro-Moscow culprits and their statements in support of the Patriarch? If the author could, he would have; but he simply can't. As to the "reported" attempt to get the Americans out of Jordanville, I would like to ask: reported by whom and on what evidence? Let us continue. "Transgression" No. 3 (p. 3):

3. When Fr. Dmitri Dudko was arrested in 1980, an abortive attempt was actually made to require public prayers for him in all ROCOR Churches, although we are forbidden any communion in prayer with members of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Again, why are the Pantelemonites complaining if the attempt at public prayer for Fr. Dudko was aborted? It's a non-issue. We have no liturgical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, but, in the words of Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch: "In the Churches of the Diaspora prayers are constantly raised up for the suffering Homeland, for the persecuted Church, for tortured and murdered for whom prayer cannot openly be offered there..." (Arch. John Maximovitch, A Concise History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 15)

The next point (No. 4) in the list really deserves a prize:

4. The obsession with the coming Millenium of the Baptism of Rus'. Much of the bishops' time at meetings of the Council of Bishops seems to be directed toward planning this celebration, while little attention is paid to flagrant violations of their earlier decisions.

Again the Panteleimonites much-loved expression: "seems to be"! No, dear reader, our bishops are not "obsessed" with the Millenium. Notwithstanding the coming Millenium, during the last two years our bishops have addressed more problems plaguing our Church than perhaps in the last decade.

I am tempted to go on citing examples of other disinformation contained in this and other papers included in the St. Nectarios Parish "information packet," but I am sure that an objective reader of my letter understands my point regarding the methods used by the Panteleimonites in their smear campaign against the Synodal Church.

For fear that "the little ones," the faithful of our Church, are being "offended" and led astray by these accusations, I must speak out. I have not been asked by anyone to write this letter, but am doing so of my own accord. My desire is to set the record straight regarding my personal work on behalf of believers inside the Soviet Union, to discuss the religious state of affairs of that communist-dominated country and, finally, to touch upon the true nature of the Panteleimonite schism.

Many of my accusers have never met me (nor I them) and are not aware of my ministry. For all who do not know me personally, allow me to introduce myself.

I feel very uneasy writing about myself. I do, however, not to boast or to defend myself, but rather to defend my Church which is being slandered.

I was born after WWII in Germany of Russian parents. Many of my relatives have suffered greatly at the hands of the God-hating communists. I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio where I received my primary education. I was brought up in an Orthodox Christian atmosphere. As a teenager, I spent several summers at Holy Trinity Monastery where, under the gentle influence of the monastic fathers, my decision to serve the Church was formulated. Upon graduating from Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, N.Y. (1972), I was ordained to the holy Priesthood in 1974 by the late Metropolitan Philaret and was assigned to a parish in Stratford, Conn. After three years of service there, I was transferred to Washington, DC. At present I am the rector of the Russian Orthodox Cathedral in Washington, DC.

I am a priest of the Russian Church Abroad, the only free part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Our existence is a temporary one which will end, when, through the grace of God, the satanic forces controlling Russia cease to exist. We are part of a persecuted Church for which we pray at every service. As a member of such a Church I cannot stand idly by and do nothing for the countless millions of our brothers and sisters in Christ who through no fault of their own were destined to be born in a godless country. This conviction led me to become a founding member and present Chairman of the Committee for the Defense of Persecuted Orthodox Christians, Inc. (CDPOC), organized in 1977 in response to the increasing oppression of Orthodox Christians in the USSR. The purpose of the Committee is to speak out in support of the victims of religious persecution, to lend them and their families spiritual and material help, and to bring their plight to the attention of Western governments, human rights organizations, and Christians of all denominations throughout the world. As part of this work I began the publication of The Orthodox Monitor, devoted to news of persecuted Orthodox Christians in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

For the past decade I have held the position of Religious Broadcaster for the Russian Service of the Voice of America, responsible for nine hours of short-wave religious broadcasts per week to the Soviet Union. This includes Divine Liturgies broadcast every Sunday and on feast days from our Cathedral in Washington to the European section of the USSR and Siberia, and Sunday Vespers to the Soviet Far East. Each service is accompanied by a 5-10 minute sermon in which I explain the basics of the Orthodox Faith.

My broadcasts include a weekly 45-minute Religion in Our Life program, which is repeated five times a week. This program presents news of religious life in the U.S. with special emphasis placed on our Orthodox listeners' counterparts in America. The program features talks on contemporary theological thought, explanations of the feast days and liturgics, readings from the Bible and important religious and/or philosophical books, lives of the saints (with special emphasis on the lives of the New Martyrs of Russia), Church history and sacred music. Extensive coverage is given to the repression of religious belief in the USSR. In addition, I voice daily Scripture readings.

Radio has a crucial role to play in changing the outlook of people in totalitarian countries; indeed, it has already done so. The number of religious believers in the Soviet Union who listen to Western short-wave radio is very large—in the millions. A great many of them live in provincial regions where radio is the only source of information. For many believers, radio is the only way to hear Orthodox religious services.

I consider this work not just secular employment, but an important extension of my priestly duties.

I serve on the advisory board of the American branch of Keston College Centre for the Study of Religion and Communism and the advisory board of CREED (Christian Relief Effort for the Emancipation of Dissidents), a group in Washington which tries to influence legislators to do more on behalf of persecuted believers in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In this connection I initiated for CREED under the auspices of CDPOC a weekly 15-minute Orthodox religious program called Life in Christ; I personally prepared and voiced over 40 such broadcasts.

I have been called upon by various committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate to give testimony on the state of religion in communist-dominated countries. I have often spoken on the same subject on television and at various gatherings across the country and have written extensively on this topic.

Let me reiterate: I feel awkward writing about myself. I do this, however, because much disinformation is being circulated about me and about the role of our Church with regard to the persecuted Church in Soviet Russia.

What is the basis for the accusations against me? They hinge on the following: 1) a trip I made to the Soviet Union in 1984, and 2) a visit to the Gorny Convent outside of Jerusalem.

I was in the Soviet Union from Nov. 16 through Dec. 3, 1984. The official purpose of my trip, arranged by the United States Information Agency (USIA), the parent organization of the Voice of America (VOA), was orientation. The USIA has a policy of sending its broadcasters to their target country in order to get first-hand impressions of life there. The other purpose of my trip was to study and analyze the religious situation in the USSR. Just two weeks before my trip, an article appeared in Komsomol'skaya Pravda in which I was labeled "a well-known propagator of evil." For my personal protection, the U.S. government provided me with a diplomatic passport. I went with the knowledge and blessing of my diocesan hierarch, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), and reported on my trip to a meeting of the Synod of Bishops. I told them about what I learned from members of the Russian religious intelligentsia and from dissatisfied parish-level clergy who were overjoyed at the opportunity of being able to talk to me—the editor/writer of the VOA's Russian religious program to which they had been attentively listening for many years. For the first time in their lives, they were able to meet, face to face, with a Synodal priest. They told me that due to the content of my weekly religious program there is probably no other Orthodox clergyman who is so fervently hated by many officials of the Moscow Patriarchate and of the antireligious establishment in the USSR, as I am. Not once during the course of my visit did I ever meet with or talk with any hierarchs or officials of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Why did I visit the Gorny Convent in Israel? Not only because it happens to be near a holy site—the birthplace of St. John the Baptist, the patron saint of our cathedral, and the site of the meeting of St. Elizabeth with the Theotokos, but also because I wanted to visit and pray at the gravesites of two martyred Russian nuns, murdered in a ritualistic manner. At Gorny the only people my pilgrims and I met were simple Russian nuns. Was I supposed to stay away only because of the nuns' compromised church leaders? Is that the fault of the many humble nuns who reside at Gorny? If so then are our nuns in the Holy Land to be held responsible for having been in obedience to the defrocked former archimandrite Anthony, who left our Church without answering charges that he is a thief and an embezzler and charges of moral turpitude?

I should add that I visited the Gorny Convent while on a parish pilgrimage which I organized in 1985. Well in advance of our trip a copy of our itinerary was submitted to my diocesan hierarch, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), who gave his blessing for our pilgrimage. In this itinerary it was clearly indicated that we would be visiting the Russian holdings in Jaffa, which include the gravesite of St. Tabitha (Acts 9:36,40) and the holdings in the new section of Jerusalem. These holy sites are also in the custody of the Moscow Patriarchate. (This admission should make the Panteleimonites happy, for now they can add to the list of the "trangressions" of our Church another item, rounding out the total count to 50.)

The accusations brought against me raise a number of serious questions that need to be addressed regarding the role of the Orthodox diaspora vis-а-vis the persecuted Church in Russia.

We should all be concerned with the religious situation in the Soviet Union. If it had not been for the Russian Revolution of 1917, world Orthodoxy would have been in much better shape than the sorry state it is in now. Before the Revolution of 1917 the Russian Church was the guardian of Orthodox ecclesiastical stability. No sooner had the Russian Church begun Her Way of the Cross, than some of the Eastern Churches embarked on the wrong ecclesiastical path. Did not the Greek Church recognize the Renovationist Schism—a Bolshevik invention whose goal it was to destroy the Orthodox Church in Russia? Was it not the Greek Church that recommended that Patriarch Tikhon step down from his patriarchal throne and surrender his leadership to the Renovationists? I offer these examples not for the sake of criticizing the Greeks, but to show what tragic ecclesiastical events transpired when the Russian Church was made captive of a satanic power. Even the entrance of the Moscow Patriarchate in the early 60's into the highly politicized World Council of Churches was dictated to it by the Soviet Government which wanted to use the Church in its foreign policy, and also to exploit its membership in that ecumenical organization to neutralize world criticism of the Khrushchev persecution of the Church, which was raging at that time in the USSR. How could it have been otherwise? If one reads issues of The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate published in the 50's, one will find that the Moscow Patriarchate was very anti-ecumenical during this period. How could the Church in Russia literally overnight so drastically have changed its stance? The answer is clear: the authorities forced this change in order to achieve the propagandistic goals of the Soviet Government. I am in no way justifying the subservience and shameful ecumenical activities of the Moscow Patriarchate. The point I am trying to make is that the sooner the suffering Russian people with God's help (and not through any kind of "new nationalism") throw off this demonic yoke, the sooner we will rid ourselves of the ecclesiastical maladies which plague many contemporary Orthodox Churches.

We must sadly acknowledge the fact that neither the Western denominations nor the Eastern Churches understand (and perhaps do not wish to understand) the complex external and internal circumstances of the Russian Church. One member of the Church in Russia writes:

Our Church lives a very difficult life; her members are unmercifully destroyed by the State; we are betrayed by brothers who consider themselves Orthodox. We are scattered like wheat, but we believe that in the appointed hour Christ will send His true disciple who will strengthen His brethren. Together with the Apostle Paul we make bold to say: "We are not of them who draw back into perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Hebrews 10:39). This our faith, which "subdues kingdoms" (Hebrews 11:33), gives us the strength to await the hour of God's visitation. "God is with us; know, ye nations, and be vanquished, for God is with us!" ("The Church and Russia," The True Vine, No. 1, Montreal, Sept., 1972, p. 9)

In the Gospel excerpt about the storm on the Sea of Galilee there are interesting parallels to the present situation in Russia. The Gospel tells us how the faith of the Apostles wavered when they were overtaken by a storm on the Sea of Galilee. Their faith wavered although they had just both witnessed and participated in a great miracle: Christ fed the multitudes with five loaves of bread and two small fishes.

In a certain sense, this is reminiscent of what happened to the Russian people. Like the Apostles, the Russian people witnessed and participated in a great miracle: the ideal of Holy Russia was revealed to them after their Baptism in 988. But just like the Apostles, they too were overcome by a storm; a storm of godlessness and spiritual death assailed Russia. In their fear, the Apostles failed to recognize the living Savior Who was walking on the sea towards them, as if from the very eye of the deadly storm. In their confusion, they wondered whether it might not be a ghost. It could not be Christ! Were it Christ, the danger would be gone, the horror would have left them, death would have retreated... Are not some of our contemporaries equally confused when they say that the spiritual rebirth of Russia is but a fantasy? Are not some implying that Christ cannot be present, where the stormy spirit of compromise reigns supreme? But at the same time we see that a decisive struggle with this spirit of compromise has begun. This struggle represents the Russian "storm on the Sea of Galilee," Russia's Golgotha, which communicates to its pious believers Christ's Grace. Truly, the light shineth in darkness, and the image of Christ is visible in the eye of Russia's present storm. The Russian people are beginning to know the Truth, and as the Gospel testifies, the Truth shall set them free.

In this century, Russia came face to face with militant, godless international communism, a totally new phenomenon which had never been experienced by any other people in the history of mankind. Russia's body was scourged, tortured and literally crucified. Fourteen months after the Bolshevik revolution, the philosopher Vasily Rozanov was to write:

Neither the cruel invasion of the Tartars, nor the invasion of Napoleon; neither Crimea nor Sebastopol; nor the Polovtsians or the Petchenegs brought to Russia even a negligible part of that devastation of her strength which was wrought by the Bolsheviks in these fourteen months.

The atheists were given free rein in their determination to destroy the Church, and they were convinced that the Church would not withstand the blows that were inflicted on her earthly body. [In 1917, there were in Russia 55,173 Orthodox churches, about 25,000 chapels, more than 1,000 monasteries. By the end of 1938, after the fierce Bolshevik persecution, there remained in Russia less than 1,000 open churches. All monasteries were liquidated, all theological schools closed. There remained four active bishops. 280 Orthodox bishops perished in concentration camps, prisons, in exile, or were shot. In the opinion of some researchers, between 42,000 and 45,000 priests perished during this period. When in 1939-1940, Bielorussia, Ukraine, the Baltic states and Bessarabia (with large Orthodox populations) were annexed by the Soviet Union, the number of parishes rose to 4,225 and the number of priests to 5,665. Many churches and some monasteries, for instance the Kiev-Caves Lavra, were opened during the war in German-occupied territories. As soon as the oppression of the Church was relaxed somewhat by Stalin during the war in order to win the Church's support for the war effort, the number of parishes rose to about 20,000, and two theological academies and eight seminaries were reopened (before the revolution, there were four academies and fifty-eight seminaries.). From 1959 to 1964, during the Khrushchev persecutions, more than one half of the parishes and five seminaries were again closed. The Kiev-Caves Lavra was also closed. Of the monasteries destroyed by the Soviets, only the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra (1946) and the Danilov Monastery in Moscow (1983) were returned to the Church. All other active monasteries exist outside the RSFSR.]

However, the atheists were not vouchsafed the joy of victory over religion. And it would be appropriate to ask how it is that after 70 years of onslaught on the Orthodox faith in Russia, after the physical extermination and ceaseless persecution of her clergy, after 70 years of systematic propaganda of atheism in every form and by every means, faith in Russia is not only alive but is being reborn in the hearts of many?

We are witnesses of a slow but steady rebirth of Orthodoxy which is gathering strength in various corners of Russia. Tatiana Goricheva, one of the participants in the religious rebirth in the Soviet Union, testifies to this:

Christian rebirth is the most joyful, and most hope-giving fact of our Russian reality. Russia is awakening from a terrible dream and is discovering God. This is the beginning of a slow but sure spiritual recovery. In ever increasing numbers, various segments of our population are being drawn into this process overcoming fear, which had paralyzed Russian souls, and driving out death by Life.

The return to the Church, the recognition of one's spiritual roots (may the Lord be praised), turned out to be not a superficial phenomemon, not a fad, as some people thought not so long ago. The roots of spiritual life go deep. Also witness to this is the Orthodox poet Yury Kublanovsky, who a few years ago was forced to emigrate to the West.

Our society is becoming more mature, more intelligent, and simply more spiritual by comparison to what it was in the 60's and 70's. I can speak of a real religious rebirth which is taking place not at all at the level at which it is often imagined. It is deep seated; it does not advertise. It is to be found in the potential readiness to sacrifice, in honesty above reproach... in the upbringing of children, in creative work, in prayers for those who have died for the Fatherland.

A few weeks ago I received in manuscript form several new Samizdat essays from the Soviet Union, written by Kirill Golovin, a man who has suffered for his faith. One of these essays to which I draw your attention I sent to the Russian emigre journal Russkoe Vozrozhdenie (Russian Revival) for publication. Here is an excerpt from this timely essay, dated November, 1986, in which the author discusses the influence that the religious revival is having upon the consiousness of the whole nation:

In the USSR, those who in the past, by their hatred or aloofness or lack of concern, allowed militant atheists to trample underfoot ancient religious treasures are, at present, sobering up as if recovering from a drunken stupor. Even villages and towns that are still host to abandoned and/or half ruined churches, do not even think of razing them—for that would incur opposition or violent displeasure. The rebirth of patriotism and national pride, which is strengthening Orthodoxy from within, promises a most noticeable fervor in defense of historical monuments, and especially churches. During Stalin's reign many churches were destroyed without even a twitch of conscience, among them the Cathedral of the Christ the Savior in Moscow, a great monument of the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. There was even an attempt to destroy one of the wonders of the world—the Cathedral of St. Basil on Moscow's Red Square. Were the Soviet authorities to attempt to destroy the Cathedral of the Christ the Savior today, they would probably face mass meetings of the opposition... It is highly unlikely that such an idea would come to anyone today. ...this social consciousness is surely evolving in a direction most beneficial for Orthodoxy, since it is coming to realize what its historical treasures and traditions mean for the whole nation, and the future of Russia.

Yes, repression continues and so does the oppression of the faithful. And, yes, the Orthodox Church is controlled by the atheist establishment, but, in spite of its captive status, people are drawn to it and find in it the source of Life. Christ's leaven is making the souls of men rise. People are coming to the Church which is a foreign body in the totalitarian regime; a foreign body which by its very nature rejects the atheistic ideology and is rejected by the totalitarian system.

The absence of spirituality in Soviet life, this negation of spirituality which is inculcated in schools and institutions of higher learning, as well as the greyness and the falsehood of Soviet life, were no doubt responsible for the awakening of this movement towards the Church. As was so well expressed by one astute observer of the contemporary spiritual life of the Russian people:

When from childhood you are repeatedly dunked in sugar-coated ideological unreality, it is not surprising that the mere smell of it makes you sick.

The author of these lines, Vladimir Zelinsky, a young Moscovite man of letters, has thoroughly studied from within the process of spiritual rebirth of the Russian people. He offers a brilliant analysis of the contemporary neophyte consciousness in his book Churchgoers (Paris, La Presse Libre, 1982) which gives a detailed and clear account of the problems confronting those who are discovering the Church in the Soviet Union.

Although numerous hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate often act as wolves in sheep's clothing, we cannot put them all into the same bag. I remind you of the secret Furov report, written only for the eyes of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and smuggled out to the West several years ago. Furov, the Vice-Chairman of the Council for Religious Affairs, shows that there are three distinct groups of bishops in the Moscow Patriarchate: the first, a completely loyal one, made up of bishops who indoctrinate their flocks in the same pro-Soviet spirit; the second group consists of bishops who take a loyal stance to the state, but who strive to encourage spirituality and church growth. The third group of bishops, according to Furov:

...is represented by that part of the episcopacy which has from time to time attempted, and is presently attempting, to evade the laws on religious worship; some of them are religiously conservative, others will not stop at falsifying the situation in the diocese and the attitudes held toward them by the authorities, and still others have been noted to attempt bribing Council (on Religious Affairs—V.P.) representatives and slander local government officials. (The Orthodox Monitor, Wash., DC. July-Dec. 1980, p. 61)

This example from the Furov Report shows that not everything is as cut-and-dried as would seem at first glance. Archbishop John Maximovitch of blessed memory wrote about this in the following manner:

Even among the hierarchs outwardly subject to the Soviet regime, many are inwardly tormented by this and when the opportunity will come, they will act according to the example of those at the Council of Chalcedon who declared with tears that they had given their signatures at the Robber Council under coercion, and according to the example of the Most Holy Patriarch Paul, who was tortured by his conscience and took the Schema in recognition of his weakness under the Iconoclasts (Arch. J. Maximovitch, A Concise History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 14).

In the book Churchgoers, in the chapter "Pastors," Vladimir Zelinsky notes that the bishops of the Russian Church, who had led a relatively sheltered life in Imperial Russia, astonished many by their steadfastness under the terrible trials inflicted upon them by the Bolshevik revolution. Many hierarchs suffered death and exile for Christ like the martyrs and confessors of apostolic times. And Zelinsky concludes:

If the clock could be turned back to that time, the majority of bishops would find sufficient strength to retrace the steps of their predecessors.

A letter of Theodosius, Bishop of Poltava, is in a way a confirmation of Zelinsky's words. The letter was written in 1977 but reached us only in 1981. In this letter, which was addressed to Brezhnev, Bishop Theodosius gives concrete examples of the difficulties with which believers have to contend in their everyday lives. (As a rule we do not take the time to dwell on the details of the lives of believers in the Soviet Union, yet they are the ones who could help us to understand better the hardships endured by Orthodox Christians in Russia and to appreciate fully the courageous stand for the Church taken by her best hierarchs and pastors. The Committee for the Defense of Persecuted Orthodox Christians has thirteen volumes of letters and various other documents written by believers in the USSR detailing their everyday trials and tribulations. This vast volume of documentation was compiled and smuggled to the West by Fr. Gleb Yakunin and represents just the tip of the iceberg.) In the beginning of his letter, Bishop Theodosius points out that before 1958, that is to say before the beginning of the persecutions initiated by Khrushchev, the Diocese of Poltava had 340 churches, of which a mere 52 remained open by 1964. He cites a series of examples of unrestrained violence by atheists in his Diocese and boldly asks:

Why all this? What for? Who needs it? Or is it perhaps some sort of misunderstanding, an annoying mistake, an accident? Not at all! ...to our sorrow this has become our everyday life. ...Our patience is running out. We have been brought to the brink of extremity and despair.

A deacon of the Russian Church, Vladimir Rusak (sentenced in 1985 to languish for 12 years in a Soviet prison camp for writing a true history of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviet regime and sending this work to the West for publication), sent an open letter to the 6th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches held in 1983 in Vancouver. In conclusion, he wrote:

I believe in God, I love my Church, I grieve for its fate and I want to serve it, but, of course, not at the price of subservience, that terrible price which our Church leadership is paying and which it proposes that I also should pay.

As we know, subservience was also rejected by Fr. Gleb Yakunin who was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. In his last statement to the court in 1980, Fr. Gleb spoke of the reasons which had prompted him to take up the defense of believers' rights which, in fact, was a labor of charity:

The principal religious commandment, which is binding on all Christians, consists in the dual and indivisible formula: love thy Lord with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself. According to this commandment, the love for God is inalienable from the love for one's neighbor. To serve one's neighbor is but a way of serving God Himself. My activities, including the founding of the Christian Committee for the Defense of Believers Rights in the Soviet Union and my participation in the work of this committee, were directed towards giving assistance to my neighbors, Russian Christians, who find themselves in danger. The defense of their right to freedom of religion is a religious imperative of my conscience. Besides, the defense of the interests of the Church is my priestly duty, for Christ said: "The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep." My trial draws to a close. There only remains to bring in the verdict. Whatever that verdict may be, I shall accept it with my conscience at peace and with gratitude to God for my fate, for the good fortune that was vouchsafed me to stand at the source of the religious rebirth of Russia, for the honor I had in defending the rights of believers and for that measure of my earthly path which I have yet to tread.

How many such pastors are there, who suffer persecution and tribulation in silence, and of whom we know so little, if anything at all? One of them, Fr. Peter Zdreliuk, lives in Kiev. He was suspended of his priestly duties in 1981, and we would know nothing about him but for the caring of his spiritual children. In their brief appeal for help they write:

Fr. Peter was an exemplary pastor, accessible to all: peasants, young people and intellectuals. Believers would come even from other parishes in Kiev to hear his sermons.

Naturally, the zealous ministry of Fr. Peter and the way he attracted the young to the Church could not pass unnoticed by the KGB, and today he is deprived of his registration to serve as a priest. (All clergy in the Soviet Union are required by law to be registered by the State.)

Then there was the courage of another good shepherd in the small Holy Transfiguration Hermitage on the shores of the Baltic Sea not far from Riga. This humble hermitage became the focal point of the spiritual wandering and seeking of all Russia. They would all come here: newly baptized converts and mysterious, hesychast wanderers with the Jesus prayer in their hearts; the illiterate poor and academicians; registered priests of the official Church and unregistered underground priests. There was hardly a segment of the population which was not represented among these pilgrims. They were all attracted to the out-the-way hermitage by one man who died in August, 1978. This was Archimandrite Tavrion.

The fate of Archimandrite Tavrion was a striking one. One early spring day in his youth, shortly before being tonsured a monk, he was crossing a frozen river when he stepped on a patch of thin ice and fell through. He did not panic but prayed fervently and was miraculously transported under the ice to a clear spot some ten meters from where he had fallen in. It turned out to be a symbolic event. Shortly thereafter, Fr. Tavrion was arrested and spent a total of 30 years in the Gulag. When as an old man he was appointed abbot of the small Transfiguration Hermitage, he became famous throughout Russia. "Acquire peace of the Holy Spirit, St. Seraphim of Sarov would say, and thousands around you will be saved." Such a possessor of peace was Fr. Tavrion, and he shared this inner peace of the Holy Spirit with the multitudes that came to his tiny Hermitage. Almost 10 years have passed since his death, yet typewritten notes and cassettes of his sermons are still handed from believer to believer throughout Russia. I am fortunate to have in my possession some of these materials.

In his book, Vladimir Zelinsky mentions yet another priest who has exerted a beneficial influence upon many in the Soviet Union. This was Fr. Nikolai Badashenko, a Moscow priest who died several years ago.

It cannot be said that Fr. Nikolai was a great confessor and spiritual mentor. But he was extraordinarily able to spiritually share the misfortunes of other. All miseries, sins, life's tortuous vicissitudes, brought to him by others, would be taken in by him, and, enveloped in his gentle, blessed and truly somehow gifted goodness, they would dissolve and, because they were now experienced by him also, they would become simpler, more forgivable, less tortuous. Every contact with him was in a way an absolution.

And how many such priests there were and still are to be found in Russia! Fr. Alexander Ilyin whom we know from the pages of the Samizdat religious almanac Nadezhda (Hope: Christian Readings); Archimandrite Sebastian Karagandinsky, who founded a convent of nuns, the majority of which were former inmates of Soviet concentration camps; Fr. Nikolai Gainov; Fr. Paul Lysak; Fr. Vladimir Shibaev; Fr. Alexander Pivovarov and many, many others unknown to us.

According to Zelinsky, the majority of priests in the Soviet Union are very close to the people. Outside big cities, relations with a priest are still patriarchal. He can be called upon at any time, day or night, to offer the Holy Mysteries. I was once told by a wife of a priest who emigrated to the West a few years ago how her husband, dressed in civilian clothes and hiding the Holy Mysteries under his arm, helped by nurses who were themselves believers, stole by night through a window into one of the wards of a hospital in Moscow to administer Holy Communion to the dying. Not all people dare have their children baptized publicly in the church for fear that the authorities will find out; some of them ask the priest to come to their homes. Despite the fact that priests know that this is forbidden, they go whenever and wherever necessary to baptize children and adults.

The Russian Church spreads the Glad Tidings of Christ not only through its worthy pastors but also by the efforts of ordinary believers. It is not only the intellectuals who are returning to the Church, but also simple people, particularly older women. The youth of these women coincided with the years of the stormy advances of atheism. At the time when the Church was the chosen target of violent persecutions, the mothers of these women saved the Church from complete annihilation by remaining true to their faith and sometimes by the simple fact that they gathered in and around the churches. Their places are now taken by their daughters and grand-daughters. And it is the young people who represent the most exciting aspect of the current religious reawakening in Russia.

One should mention the activities of Christian youth seminars in Russia. Almost all their known leaders have served time in concentration camps. Before his own incarceration, Fr. Gleb Yakunin wrote about them:

The authorities use every means to cut short the activity of Orthodox youth groups and seminars where uncontrolled fellowship of Christians and self-enlightment take place. Such persecution bears witness to the fact that the real encounter of Russia with Christ is taking place, an encounter which inspires fear in her enemies.

According to knowledgeable sources, there are at present more than one hundred youth groups in Leningrad alone, which for obvious reasons do not advertise their existence.

Most newly converted believers were brought up in the spirit of atheism, reared in the families of Communist Party members where religion was considered an invention of ignoramuses and the word "church" implied an organization full of corrupt priests, exploiters of the simple and ignorant people. This is all gradually changing. Zelinsky writes:

If you were to remove in your mind's eye the facade of our respected institutions, you would discover that next to those who gorge themselves on newspaper and television propaganda there sits working, unnoticed by others, perhaps a talented mathematician who is also an expert on patristics, and owner of an outstanding library of Russian religious philosophers; or a psychiatrist engaged in unceasing prayer; or an artist who was only yesterday an alcoholic and is now preparing to enter a theological seminary; or a programmer who is ready at the drop of a hat to give a lecture on liturgics; or a theoretical physicist who is deeply engrossed in Orthodox asceticism.

Quite a few newly converted Orthodox Christians enter the priesthood, willing to part with their university degrees and comforts of city life in order to serve God and their fellow man in any remote country parish. Such is the powerful attraction that pastoral service exerts on those born in a godless environment.

There are people in Russia who, having heard Christ's call to serve one's neighbor, sacrifice their own safety and devote themselves to Christian mercy and compassion for the persecuted. Such activity is denounced by the Soviet authorities as criminal. More than once did the Soviet media engage in mud-slinging against the Russian Social Fund for Assistance to Political Prisoners and their Families founded in 1974 by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and financed exclusively by royalties from his monumental work The Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn's Russian Social Fund is not a political organization but a charitable undertaking which insures the physical survival of many of those who are most severely persecuted. Moreover, the bulk of the Fund is spent on children and the elderly whose breadwinners were put away into the Gulag system because they had dared to live in accordance with the dictates of their religious and moral convictions. In 1983, for just such an act of charity, Sergei Khodorovich, Manager of the Fund, was arrested, convicted and incarcerated.

It is possible that many of those who came to the Church and began to live a life in Christ did so thanks to the missionary labors of one middle-aged woman—Zoya Krakhmalnikova, the compiler and editor of a marvelous series of Christian readings Nadezhda (Hope: Christian Readings; issues 1-14, consisting of about 200 pages each, reached the West and were published by the Posev Publishing House in Frankfurt, FRG.) Zoya Krakhmalnikova, working entirely alone, has created a whole library of devotional readings. She resurrected the ecclesiastical memory of Russia which is so badly needed by her people. Having taken upon herself the cross of apostolic service, Krakhmalnikova has revealed to her countrymen what it means to love and serve the Church. She did not strive for a martyr's crown but she was ready at any time to accept such a crown. With Christian courage in her last statement to the court which convicted her to a sentence of depravation of freedom for her purely religious activities, she said: "Glory be to God for everything." In Russia, as I found out for myself, there is a great demand for her devotional almanacs, which are passed from person to person and read until they fall apart.

In the words of St. Ephraim the Syrian "The entire Church is the Church of the perishing, the Church of the repenting." Repentance is the principal and fundamental duty of a Christian. Repentance leads to spiritual rebirth, and it is the saving path of rebirth that believing Russia is now taking. The following is an eloquent testimony to this fact given by Fr. Metrophan, a Serbian monk from Mt. Athos, who had spent a few days in the Pskov-Caves Monastery (see the Journal Posev, 1092, No. 9, p. 55):

...the Liturgy started. We (i.e. a group of visiting Serbian monks—V.P.) are moving slowly through a large crowd in the direction of a faint voice. It was the voice of Fr. Kosma who was preparing the faithful for confession. He is speaking about the family, about the Church. He is giving spiritual instruction in the context of everyday life. But all examples chosen by him sound like real religious instruction, making one think about life, about cleansing oneself of sins, weaknesses and of self-deception in order to be as worthy as possible to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Father Kozma then read the prayer before confession and covered the head of the first confessant with his epitrachelion. And then came a flood of words and stifled sobbing. People in the crowd were publicly confessing. The epitrachelion covered now one head, now another. Father Kozma frequently whispered into the ears of the confessants. It was an extremely moving experience for us; it was like being transported into Apostolic times! Only through suffering is the resurrection possible, and it was happening before our very eyes through confession and Holy Communion. In this lay the pledge for tomorrow's day, for our immediate future, as was so prophetically foretold by Dostoevsky. The choir started singing the Communion hymn, and those who have already confessed began to approach the Chalice one by one, while in the depths of the church confession continued. In order not to interrupt the service, Fr. Kozma asked the confessants to put their arms around each other and using the entire length of the epitrachelion covered all their heads together and read over them the prayer of absolution. When all the confessants had left, Fr. Kozma beckoned us forward and pointed to the floor at his feet. The marble shone as if splashed with water. The burning candles and red vigil lamps were reflected in the water. Pointing to this moisture, Fr. Kozma said to us: "These are the tears of the repentant Russian people. It is by them that our Church lives."

The militantly atheistic Bolsheviks have attempted to spiritually suffocate the Russian people and have forced Russia and its Holy Church to suffer more than any other nation or church in history. In the 70 years of Soviet totalitarianism, directly or indirectly, nearly 66 millions human lives were sacrificed. Is this not reason enough for concern? Yet you—the defenders of Fr. Panteleimon—dare to debase this concern by calling it "nostalgic yearning for the motherland."

It is easy for us here in the safety and comfort of the West to strictly judge members of the Church in Soviet Russia. It is easy for us to say what they should do and say and how they should act, for no one is threatening us with prison, labor camp, internal exile, psychiatric asylum, and loss of parental rights. Worst of all, the contemporary persecutors have at their disposal a most diabolical weapon: mind-altering drugs. In the first centuries persecutors tortured and killed the bodies of Christians. In our time, in their attempt to alter the personality of the Christian so that he or she will conform to a satanic worldview, the persecutors not only torture the body but the mind as well. This is how they force certain Christians to recant their views. Those who believe in the genuineness of such acts of contrition display complete ignorance of the satanical order of Communism, whose ultimate goal is to control at any cost the minds of the people suffering under its malignant yoke.

My heart aches when I recall what some of the Panteleimonites said of Fr. Dimitri Dudko, when after several months of total isolation and psychological abuse he was forced to recant on Soviet television. The comment I heard from many of you at that time was: "It is no wonder that this happened, because Dudko is in obedience to the prostitute Moscow Patriarchate, which lacks grace." I am convinced that those who opposed Fr. Dimitry Dudko, spoke out against him, pointed out his errors with the self-satisfied zeal of a hypocrite, and those who could have given him prayerful support during his time of need but didn't, are in some measure guilty in all that befell Fr. Dimitry.

Without a doubt the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate compromised themselves by fulfilling the dictates of the militantly atheistic Soviet government. It is for this reason that in 1927 the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia severed ties with it and will definitely not reinstitute liturgical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate until it stops its shameful subservience. Since the creation of our Church and to this day all of our bishops are in categorical agreement with this principle and have never wavered or stated otherwise. I too categorically disapprove of, indeed, condemn the negative actions of many Soviet bishops, who through total subservience to the godless state have turned their backs to the spiritual welfare of the Orthodox faithful. Such hierarchs are truly a pitiful group and I have no sympathy for what they are doing. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy for the millions of God-fearing believers and worthy clergy who fill the churches of Russia to beyond capacity and in this way have saved the Church from complete annihilation. You ask "at what price?" Permit a future Sobor of the free Russian Church to decide that. Let us until then, not waste our spiritual energy in judgement and stop calling the Church in the Soviet Union "a prostitute church," as have some of the Panteleimonites.

Many are quick in recognizing the negative actions of the Moscow Patriarchate, but are slow to acknowledge positive developments. The bishops of our Church have never been reluctant to condemn the subservient path chosen by the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, but at the same time they pray that God bring the bishops in the USSR to their senses. As we know, under the influence of the ecumenical Metropolitan Nicodim, in 1969 the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate entered into limited intercommunion with the Roman Catholic Church. This practise was resisted by many bishops and priests. Keston College reports (Keston News Service, Issue No. 268, Feb. 5, 1987) that this practice has officially been terminated by the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate. The Sept., 1986 issue of The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate printed the official Ukaze:

Deliberated: Concerning the Explanation of the Holy Synod of Dec. 16, 1969, regarding the practice of allowing Roman Catholics to receive the Holy Mysteries through economy.

Resolved: In view of the inquires which have been received concerning the above-mentioned Explanation, the Holy Synod reports that this was never practiced and determines to terminate the implementation of the Synodal Explanation of December 16, 1969.

As I tried to show earlier, there are, fortunately, still worthy clergymen in the Moscow Patriarchate, indeed saintly people the likes of Starets Tavrion, who was held in high regard by the late Metropolitan Philaret. The Panteleimonites, however, find fault even with him and do their utmost to abase this holy man. Behold how this is done.

On August 9/22, 1981 the Holy Transfiguration Monastery sent a letter to Metropolitan Philaret. This letter was signed not just by Archimandrite Panteleimon, but by all the monks and novices of his monastery, and also by the nuns and novices of the Holy Nativity Convent. Is it not highly improper for monks and even novices, who are taught by the fathers of the Boston Monastery to remain silent, to sign letters critical of the First Hierarch of our Church? Is this the "obedience" in which the monks and novices of the Boston Monastery are taught? The obedience of criticism?

The authors begin their epistle by asking for the blessing of Metropolitan Philaret, addressing him as "Beloved and most respected Vladika," and continue "with love and reverence (we) make a poklon (prostration—V.P.) and kiss your right hand." Then, having dispensed with these hypocritical niceties, the authors "communicate this our sorrow and bewilderment to you, our father, that you may be informed of it, and lest, through silence, we should be party to the positions expounded in this issue" (of The Orthodox Word—V.P.). What is this earth-shattering problem which so troubles them and which has, according to the authors "caused harm and confusion..."? The first point made in this collective letter concerns an article about Fr. Tavrion which appeared in the 96th (Jan.-Feb., 1981) issue of The Orthodox Word. The authors of the letter to Metropolitan Philaret write:

In the article on Fr. Tavrion, we are told of some of the many peculiarities of this priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the author of the article, presumably the novice Maria Erastova, informs us, "Especially beautiful were the small peculiarities of the Elder's services, which made them unlike the services of any other priest" (p. 19). How much this speaks of the Soviet Church. Are not such personal peculiarities and departures from tradition and the order and typicon which we have received the very basis of renovationism? The example of Fr. Tavrion is an indication of the sort of pastoral care of the Soviet hierarchy and all modernistic and ecumenistic "Orthodox" hierarchies wherever they be. Anything and everything is permitted—every kind of innovation and peculiarity—as long as one recognizes these same hierarchies and commemorates them.

What are these "outrageous" liturgical peculiarities introduced into the church services by Fr. Tavrion which so scandalized the abbot, monks, nuns and novices of the Boston monastic community? These peculiarities are not specified in their letter to the late Metropolitan. Let us, therefore, turn to the 96th issue of The Orthodox Word in question. Apparently, the liturgical peculiarities that trouble the Pantelemonites are discussed on pp. 19 and 20 of this article:

Especially beautiful were the small peculiarities of the Elder's services, which made them unlike the services of any other priest. For example: "Holy God" would be sung first by the right choir, then Fr. Tavrion would in turn face the people and exclaim: "Let the whole church sing!"—and he would lead the singing. The third "Holy God" would be by the left choir. Always the same melody would be sung for "Holy God," taken from the Great Doxology of Feofanov.

The second time he said, "Let the whole church sing" was before the Creed. At the end of the Creed, now in red vestments, the Elder would turn to the Holy Doors, facing the people, and say: "And so, brother and sister Christians, we have come to the greatest moments of the world-saving service of the Divine Liturgy. The Church of God asks and entreats us to sing, praise, and thank God with one heart and one mouth. Let us do it." The singers from both sides would come down and kneel around the ambo; everyone present likewise got on their knees, and the whole church would sing "A mercy of peace" (always the Feofanov melody).

The third time Fr. Tavrion said "Let the whole church sing" was before the "Our Father." Later, when he was already sick, he gave communion sitting on a small stool, and then in his shining vestments he was like Abraham or one of the Patriarchs.

So, here we have it—the "outrageous" liturgical peculiarities of Fr. Tavrion. As much as I would like to sympathize with the scandalized Panteleimonites in this instance, I can’t. I fail to see Fr. Tavrion's practices as "departures from tradition and the order of the typicon" as do the Panteleimonites. Is congregational singing a "departure from tradition"? What's wrong with it? I know of many parishes that practice congregational singing. I practice it in my own parish. I even have my deacon turn to the congregation before the Creed and Our Father to invite all the people to join in the singing. Maybe the authors of the letter to the Metropolitan are troubled with Fr. Tavrion’s stressing the importance of the Eucharistic Canon by saying a few words before its beginning? Let us not forget that a large portion of the multitudes which flocked to Fr. Tavrion’s Hermitage from all corners of the Soviet Union are spiritual infants, people who know little or nothing about the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church. (Organized religious instruction is forbidden by law in the USSR.) A few short words before the beginning of the Eucharistic Canon can only help these multitudes to be more pious and attentive during this, the most solemn part of the Liturgy. Maybe the Panteleimonites have something against the Feofanov chant? Well, that’s a matter of taste, and everyone is entitled to have his own.

I cannot help but smile to myself when I read this criticism of "liturgical peculiarities," for how many of them there are at the Boston monastery. For example, according to the tradition of the Boston Monastery at the evening services, one of the monks will stand at the ambo and give the life of the saint of the day. Before the monk’s talk everyone in church drops to the floor. During the explanation of the life of the saint Fr. Panteleimon, from behind the iconostasis, will often blurt out a humorous comment pertaining to this particular life, or give out a loud sigh causing everyone in church to laugh. Now this is what I call peculiar. However, I would not be scandalized by this peculiar practice of the Boston Monastery.

Fr. Tavrion is most certainly not a modernist or renovationist as the authors of the letter to Metropolitan Philaret would have us believe. He was a saintly man who brought many of his compatriots to Christ. Perhaps the editors of The Orthodox Word said it best:

From the midst of Soviet reality we may see a glimpse of Holy Russia in pastors like Fr. Tavrion. The image of him and his convent... is rough, severe, sometimes "incorrect" by the polished standards of the comfortable Orthodoxy of the West. But how close to God it is, and what a reproach to us! It is clear that the life of God's Church in Russia goes on despite the betrayal, willing and unwilling, of the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate (The Orthodox Word, no.96, 1981).

Not only Fr. Tavrion of blessed memory, but numerous other pious clergy who place themselves in no small danger by conducting secret baptisms, proselytizing, lending out copies of the Gospels and books on spirituality, writing and distributing religious Samizdat materials, conducting clandestine talks and seminars for children and young people. In other words doing their best under the most difficult of circumstances to do their priestly duty.

Although there exists a small, martyric Catacomb Church, it is for all practical purposes, and for obvious reasons, cut off from the masses of Orthodox believers in the Soviet Union. However, all true pastors in the USSR lead a sort of "catacomb" or dual existence for the reasons mentioned above.

The process of spiritual revival in Russia has begun in earnest and we should all be supporting it regardless of our nationality, because the implications of this spiritual reawakening is of universal importance.

But how little is known about it here in the West. To a great extent we are to blame because we do so little, remain so indifferent. We are reminded in many of the prayers of the Church of our responsibility to care for the persecuted. In all of our parishes at each service we pray to God "for the suffering Russian Land and its Orthodox people... That He may deliver His people from the bitter torment of the godless authority..." To these last words the Church hastens to add "...and confirm in us oneness of mind, brotherly love and piety." I interpret this to mean a striving for oneness of mind in our care for the persecuted. It is noteworthy that the Church prays for all persecuted Orthodox Christians in Soviet Russia, not just the one particular group. And not only for the persecuted does the Church call upon us to pray, but even for the persecutors: "...unto those who have departed from Thee and seek Thee not, be Thou manifest, that not one of them perish, but that all of them be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth (The Prayer for the Salvation of Russia)."

Let me bring to your attention another Gospel image—that of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man had everything. His life was spent in feasting and merriment, while at his gates lay a beggar, Lazarus, who pleaded for the crumbs from the rich man's table. The rich man led a sheltered existence and greatly enjoyed all things given him in this life but never once pitied him who had nothing. The rich man lived his life never contemplating the meaning of life, never wondering how others lived. And at his gates a man, a man of his own country, his own faith, lay starving and suffering. This indifference to the plight of others led to the spiritual impoverishment of the rich man, and he was condemned by God...

Is it not at our very gates that the Russian Lazarus suffers, starved for spiritual food?..

The Christian life, especially the life of an Orthodox priest, is not a shifting of responsibility to God. Let us not forget that we are called upon to become co-workers of God in His plan of salvation and transfiguration of the world. We are called to action, according to the words of the Apostle James: "Be ye doers of the Word, and not hearers only (James, 1: 22)." And what does the Word of God command us to do? "I was hungry and you gave Me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me to drink; I was naked and you covered Me; sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me (Matt. 25: 35-36)."

The Russian Church is experiencing all these deprivations. In our pastoral service, will we recognize and come to the aid of the suffering Christ Who is calling to us from the huge prison which to the civilized world is known as the Soviet Union? Or when Christ calls us to His dread judgement seat will we say: "When were You in prison?", or "We didn't come to Your aid because You were in a Russian prison which was of no concern to me because I am Greek (or American)." Or will our answer be: "I could not come to the aid of people lacking grace."

In a letter I received from Fr. Gleb Yakunin, who is presently serving a lengthy sentence of denial of freedom for his activities on behalf of persecuted believers, he wrote:

"Experience—tragic experience—has shown that for suffering people, including those who confess the Christian faith, the most difficult thing is not so much the sufferings themselves, however painful they may be, but the feeling that they have been forgotten by other people, their brothers in faith. To realize this is very distressing. But if, on the other hand, they are not forgotten, if people remember them, this is a great moral support which helps them to endure their torments steadfastly."

How would these persecuted people react to the various opinions expressed by many Panteleimonites, claiming that the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union is a "prostitute church" lacking grace? Are we to conclude that each time the faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate approach the Holy Chalice they receive only bread and wine? Is this the moral support which Fr. Gleb Yakunin asks for? Most certainly not. Instead it is salt rubbed into their wounds.

I find it incredible that certain members of the Panteleimonite Schism take it upon themselves to judge whether the Church in Russia does or does not have grace. Who appointed you to decide the boundaries of the Church? Was it not St. Basil the Great who said: we know where the Church is, but not where She is not?

What Church Council gave you the mandate to decide who does and who does not have grace? Certainly not the Russian Church Abroad whose hierarchs have, wisely, never officially stated that the Moscow Patriarchate is without grace. Our Church has never re-baptized or re-married former members of the Moscow Patriarchate. Our hierarchs have always accepted clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate with full recognition of their ordination. I find it impossible to believe that God, infinite in His merciful love towards mankind, would withhold His saving grace from tens of millions of people just because they belong to the official Church. He did not turn His Face away from the people of Israel, even though they often denied Him. "God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble (James, 4:6)." The Orthodox believers in the Soviet Union have been humbled by 70 years of suffering and are thus deserving of God's grace. Our Church has always adhered to the opinion of the Blessed Archbishop John (Maximovitch) that the official Church in the USSR does have grace, notwithstanding the fact that her leading hierarchs are on the wrong path. For this reason, in the words of the Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch:

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia spiritually is not separated from her suffering Mother. She offers up prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time she will unite with her, when the reasons for their disunity have vanished. And there is no doubt that within Russia also many hierarchs, clergy, and layman are with us and would themselves be happy to act as we do if they were able. (Arch. John Maximovitch, A Concise History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 13-14.)

Truly, Russia is experiencing a spiritual storm. Before this storm of atheism began, the Russian people also experienced and participated in a great miracle, that of Holy Russia with its multitude of churches, monasteries and saints. Multitudes were being spiritually fed. Nonetheless they wavered in their faith. But now, slowly but surely, the Russian people are returning to the faith, because they have discerned Christ in the eye of the storm. "My grace is sufficient for thee: My strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9)

Many did not waver. Their blood has become the seed of Russia's spiritual rebirth. The canonization of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia is causing ferment among the clergy and believers of the Moscow Patriarchate. These are not my words, but the words of a priest I met in Moscow. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1984, I was amazed at the number of homes where icons of the New Martyrs were openly displayed.

"And the light shineth in darkness." The Light of Christ is shining even in the darkness of the officially godless society of the Soviet Union. Christ is mercifully stretching out His hand to the people of Russia, as He did to the Apostle Peter, and with each passing day, more and more people are grasping that hand, and as children of a loving father, they are being gently led along the path of salvation. These are the sons and daughters of militant atheists, the children of communist functionaries, indeed many of them were yesterday's atheists!

But how could this be happening, if Orthodox believers in Soviet Russia lack Christ's Grace? If not by Grace, then by what magic? If it is not Christ Who is ridding Soviet Russia of the legion of demons that has been possessing it for the past 70 years, can it be that these devils are being cast out by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils, as the Pharisees of old claimed? (Matt. 12:24)

There are those who say that all this talk about a religious revival in the Soviet Union is exaggerated. Some even go so far as to deny the existence of this spiritual reawakening. All I can say in answer to this is that such ignorance is displayed by people who are either absolutely not interested, or by those who are opposed to this miracle of faith.

There is overwhelming evidence pointing to a genuine Russian spiritual revival. Only the blind fail to see it. Even the militant Soviet atheists acknowledge its existence. That is why the Soviet press is full of commentaries trying to discredit this rebirth of faith.

Become interested—educate yourselves. Read the publications of Keston College, an institution in Great Britain that has thousands of pages of manuscripts pertaining to this revival, smuggled out of the Soviet Union. Many of these manuscripts have been printed in Keston College’s quarterly Religion in Communist Lands, many more are in the archives at Keston waiting to be published. Study the Samizdat Bulletin (Wash., D.C.) Russkoe Vozrozhdenie (Russian Revival, N.Y.), Religion in Communist Dominated Areas (N.Y.), Vestnik RKhD (The Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement, Paris), Veche (The Meeting Place, Munich), The Orthodox Monitor (Wash., D.C.), the fine Samizdat journal of contemporary Orthodox spirituality Nadezhda: khristianskoe chtenie (Hope: Christian Readings, published in Frankfurt), Arkhiv Samizdata (Samizdat Archives by RFE/RL Research, Frankfurt) and numerous other publications.

In another section of the above-mentioned essay by Kyrill Golovin the Samizdat author discusses the forthcoming Millenium of the Baptism of Russia:

The Russian Church is not celebrating its Millenium with imperial pomp and circumstance of yesteryear—but from within a sort of "Babylonian captivity,"—a cleansing, purifying ordeal, noted not only for its misery and difficulties, but filled with the glorious presence of the New Holy Martyrs and Confessors and great teachers of the Church. There has never been another Church which has suffered as much for Christ. Has any other nation, subjected to such evil and prolonged hardships shown such loyalty to the Savior? Each Orthodox Christian in our country will commemorate the forthcoming Millenium of the Russian Church remembering this podvig of captivity and not in triumphant worldly ways, with humble prayers for God's forgiveness for all the sins that were committed by Russia—which brought upon it God's righteous anger. This prayer must ask God to forgive and allow Russia to be liberated from the heavy yoke, which is taxing the endurance of her people. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, show Your sinful people Your Divine mercy, May we never be forsaken by your Love."

Such is a contemporary witness to the spiritual state of affairs in much-suffering Russia.

We are all called upon to imitate Christ. He stretched out His hand to the frightened Apostle Peter, who was wavering in his faith. Surely we should be doing the same for those who need our support in Russia? Are we not called upon by St. Paul to join in the sufferings of other members of Christ's Body? Such is the stance of our Church. In the words of the Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch:

Without having visible contacts with her Church in the Homeland, the Russian Church Outside of Russia is in spiritual communion with all there who suffer and are persecuted, who languish in confinement and banishment (Arch. John Maximovitch, A Concise History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Jerusalem, 1972, p. 14).

In September of 1974—almost 13 years ago, the Third Major Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, met at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, N.Y. It passed the following two resolutions concerning the state of the Church in the Soviet Union: 1) "Being free, our Church shall condescend to the bonds of others and show them understanding, brotherly love and support them in preserving Orthodoxy." 2) "Effectively offer a helping hand to a spiritually reawakening Russia."

The resolutions passed at the Third Major Council of our Church remind us that our bishops from the very beginning of the Russian Church Abroad have espoused an ecclesiology steeped in the Gospel teaching of compassion and understanding, of economy. Truly, the archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia have embraced not only in theory, with their minds, but in practice, with their hearts, the teaching of St. Paul: "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things (1 Cor. 13: 4-7)."

On the other hand we have the Panteleimonites who go on and on about the canons and due process, and about this and about that. You quote the letter of the Law with great zeal, like the scribes and pharisees of old, but have completely overlooked, forgotten, or have tried your best to avoid the spirit of the Law. In truth, you have become "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal (1 Cor. 13: 1)." One is left with the impression that you have completely lost the wondrous, joyful symplicity of the Gospel of our Lord and God Jesus Christ! In general, by reading various Panteleimonite publications and speaking to many of your priests and followers, one gets the disturbing impression that there is no joy in your brand of spirituality, no compassion, but rather a complete lack of Christian love and understanding.

For example, in reading your letters and publications in which the Church in Russia is vehemently criticized of modernism, ecumenism and the like, you imply that the clergy and believers of that Church should break with their bishops. But what choice do they have; where should they go if the majority of clergy and believers do not know what their hierarchs are doing? Do not forget that they do not live in normal conditions where such decisions can be easily made. There is a great lack of information among the believers in Russia. They do not have access to the masses of information that we do here in the West. I know for a fact that most parish clergy cannot even get a copy of The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate—the only periodical which the Church is allowed to produce. While many believers in the Soviet Union experience acute tormenting inner conflict with the policies of the Moscow Patriarchate, the mass of believers know so little of the activities of their bishops and are informed even less about us and ecumenism. For these reasons it is very difficult for the believers in Russia to "distinguish trees that are deprived of their leaves" (the "Shepherd" of Hermas). Let us, therefore, not waste our time and spiritual energy in judgement of these innocent believers, but devote that energy bringing them understanding of the Truth.

Let us turn to the real reasons behind the withdrawal from the jurisdiction of our Church of the Panteleimonite schismatic parishes. Is it really because of the various unfounded and petty charges brought against our Church and listed in the letter of the Boston Deanery and in the "information packet" of the St. Nectarios Parish? Of course not! Many of the accusations against our priests and bishops are not new. Surely the "elder," when he joined our Church over twenty years ago, and others knew that the Church Abroad had been enjoying cordial relations with the Serbian Church and that our pilgrims,—bishops and priests included—had been receiving Holy Communion at the Holy Sepulchre. And surely he knew of the concern of our Church for Orthodox believers in the Soviet Union. These are not the true reasons for the schism.

The real reason is Fr. Panteleimon himself.

It puzzles me why so many seemingly intelligent people, who supposedly know something about Orthodox ecclesiology, could so easily be torn from the Church because of one man, whose conduct has been questioned by an entire Synod of bishops. Has it occurred to any of you that there might be substance to the charges brought against Fr. Panteleimon? This is not a conflict of Russians versus Greeks, as some would have us believe. Charges against Fr. Panteleimon were brought not by Russians, but by Greek and American monks and former monks—six to be exact—nurtured by the Transfiguration monastery!

Has it occurred to any of you to ask why the entire Synod, including the most conservative of our bishops, Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, and the Metropolitan himself, who were always the closest friends of your movement, found it neccessary to support the initiative of investigating the charges of sexual perversion brought against Fr. Panteleimon? Has it occurred to any of you to ask why the leaders of his schismatic movement have so abruptly changed their attitude with regard to the positions of our Church? Finally, has it occurred to any of you to question Fr. Panteleimon's decision to flee to another jurisdiction rather than to patiently await his day in ecclesiastical court to prove his innocence? Instead he left our Church before any trial took place. Would it not have made more sense for him to first prove his innocence and then leave our Church, putting his accusers to shame? Instead Archimandrite Panteleimon and his adherents come up with a list of petty accusations against the hierarchs and others of the Russian Synodal Church (which, apparently, he patiently put up with for more than twenty years) and leaves our jurisdiction precisely at the time when charges of immoral conduct are being brought against him. In the secular world such conduct would be considered an admission of guilt. This action will come back to haunt Fr. Panteleimon, for he broke with our Church without first clearing his name.

Is such behavior worthy of a monk, indeed, an elder? Certainly not. Instead of suffering in silence, putting his hope in the defense that only Christ can provide, he and his followers have instigated a secular public relations campaign, reminiscent of the ones conducted by political campaigns. How well organized it is. Madison Ave. should be envious! I have seen a copy of a letter from one of the Panteleimonite priests sent to others of this movement instructing them how to use his letter as a guide in writing other letters in defense of the "elder" ("do not use recognizable phrases...").

The Synod never tried Archimandrite Panteleimon. What it did do, to use a secular analogy, was hold a "grand-jury" type of inquiry in which our bishops decided that there was enough evidence to warrant a Church "indictment,"—i.e. for a trial. The trial itself was never held. Witnesses were interviewed (separately from each other) by members of an expanded meeting of the Synod. Fr. Panteleimon, who, by the way, himself asked to be relieved of his duties as abbot of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, was also interviewed, as were some of his supporters. This "grand-jury" type inquiry concluded that the charges brought against Fr. Panteleimon were sufficiently credible to merit further action. But Fr. Panteleimon left before any action could be taken.

The members of the Synod called upon the Mother of God for guidance during this delicate inquiry and always had with them the miraculous Kursk-Root and Iveron Myrrh-Streaming Icons of the Theotokos. They believe that they did their best to review the charges fairly. I ask my reader to consider whether he or she believes that the Synod could have acted lightly or carelessly in so serious a matter? Each hierarch knew perfectly well that a hasty or biased decision would bring harm to our Church.

The Panteleimonites accuse our bishops of violating the canons in dealing with Fr. Panteleimon's case. In an attempt to prove their point they refer to the handling of the former Archimandrite Anthony case. On page 6 (item No. 15) of the paper "The Current State of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia," (included in the St. Nectarios Parish Information Packet) we read:

2. The treatment of Archimandrite Anthony Grabbe. Archimandrite Anthony was treated as already judged and condemned from the time the initial accusations were presented against him. In his case, one of his two judges was a close personal friend and godfather of the son of his chief accuser; certainly this creates at least an appearance of conflict of interest. Archimandrite Anthony was forbidden to return to Jerusalem, while he was being ordered to provide materials which could only be found in Jerusalem. He was suspended from the priesthood with no trial, supposedly until he replied to the accusations. When he submitted his reply, it was not acknowledged and the suspension was not removed. On the contrary, the Synod continued to demand the materials he had already submitted. In despair of receiving a just hearing, Archimandrite Anthony finally appealed to a Greek Old Calendar bishop, who found the suspension uncanonical and removed it.

This passage although it is not acknowledged as a quote, is for the most part taken directly from a memorandum to Metropolitan Vitaly written on 17/30 June, 1986 by Bishop Gregory Grabbe, father of the former Archimandrite Anthony, in defense of his son. On several occasions Bishop Gregory tried to use his infuential position in the Church to halt the investigation of his son. Now this truly represents a conflict of interest, but this doesn't bother the Pantelemonites one bit. As to Fr. Anthony's suspension (and Fr. Panteleimon's), this was done in full accord with the statutes of our Church, which require:

A clergyman who has been accused of a crime is to be suspended from serving... The order for this to be done is entrusted to the local Bishop, who is obligated to take care that those who are accused of a grave violation of good conduct according to God's laws not approach to serve before the Altar of the Lord. (Article 159 of the Regulation of Spiritual Consistories)

In the above-mentioned passage the Pantelemonites write that the former Archimandrite Anthony appealed to an Old Calendar bishop, who found the suspension uncanonical and removed it. In other words, the Old Calendar bishop, who is not named, uncanonically meddled into the affairs of the Russian Church Abroad. Who is this mysterious Old Calendar bishop? He is Paisius, about whom the Panteleimonites several years ago wrote ("A Clarification," undated; signed by 13 clergymen: Archmandrite Panteleimon, Priestmonk Isaac, Fr. G. Macris, Fr. N. Palassis, Fr. P. Carras, Fr. A. Gavalas and others.) that he became a bishop "by hook or by crook." (p. 10) The authors of this document also wrote about Paisius the following:

...was the first to advertise in print concerning free Mysteries. This alone is enough to show the character of the man. (p. 9)

In the Spring of 1979, a third synod of the TOC ("True Orthodox Church"—V.P.)—consisting of ten members—emerged in Greece. This synod was created by two bishops who were formerly of the Auxentios synod and who protested certain irregularities of Archbishop Auxentios and those with him, among which was the secret ordination of Bishop Paisius. This new synod proceeded to defrock Paisius from the priesthood on the basis of charges against him in Greece, not even taking into account his ordination as a bishop, since it was done in secret. Archbishop Auxentios retaliated by deposing all the members of the new synod as having created a schism. (p. 10)

To recognize bishops such as Peter, Akakios, and Paisius, is to recognize ecclesiastical vagantism - it is to reward opportunism and egoism in the extreme. (p. 13)

It turns out that by sympathetically writing about the actions of Paisius in regard to the Anthony Grabbe case the Panteleimonites have recognized ecclesiastical vagantism.

Let's face it: the various charges leveled against our Church are just a smoke screen. The sad events of the past year cannot be attributed to ecumenism, modernism, sympathy for the Soviet Church, or to a sinister plot of the Russians "nostalgically yearning for their motherland" to discredit a Greek "elder." The origin of the present woes of the schismatic Panteleimonite movement is to be traced back solely to the Holy Transfiguration Monastery—your spiritual center, and to its abbot,—your spiritual mentor.

There are many aspects of your movement that trouble me and many others in the Church. According to your worldview, not everyone in the Synod is capable of being a true representative of genuine Orthodoxy which can only be represented by a select few "real" priests who demand of each other identity of pastoral practice, absolute congruity in behavior and share the same mindset. It is amusing to see certain priests of the Panteleimonite schism walk and even talk like the "elder." This is typical of cults.

I remember a conversation I once had with one of your followers about salvation. In all seriousness he told me that often when he found himself in a crowd of people, he would say to himself: "I am the only true Orthodox among them; I am the only one capable of being saved." This too is a characteristic of cults.

It should be noted that this particular convert, having already been baptized in another Orthodox Church (not just chrismated, but baptized), was accepted into our Church and was receiving the Holy Mysteries from the clergy of our Church, was then rebaptized by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery. This is not the only instance of double Orthodox baptism practiced by the Boston Monastery. There have been many such cases practised not only by the monastery in Boston, but by other clergymen of the Panteleimonite persuasion. Most of the converts in question were accepted into our Church with the knowledge of our bishops, and yet they were rebaptized by the Panteleimonites. Such actions imply that you place yourselves above our bishops. Such conduct smacks of sectarianism.

A priest of your movement once said and even expressed in writing, that after Christ the "elder" is number one in his life. This too is the hallmark of cults.

Your obedience to the "elder" is tragic, indeed spiritually suicidal.

You are joining an old-calendarist splinter group. Their number has multiplied to the point where literally you cannot tell one from the other without a program!

I implore you to soberly think about what you are doing. You are leaving a Church of ecclesiastical stability, which remains unswerving in its faithfulness to Holy Orthodoxy, the Church of the Kursk and Myrrh-Streaming Icons, the Church which glorified the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, the Church of such Champions of Orthodoxy as Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and Philaret, and Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch.

Reconsider your decision. I fully recognize that this is a very difficult thing to do, for many of you have sacrificed your hearts to, and have invested years of your life, in, Fr. Panteleimon's cause. Obedience to him is a difficult thing to overcome, but for the sake of your salvation...

Praying that your eyes and hearts will be opened to discern the Truth, I remain

Yours in Christ,

Fr. Victor S. Potapov
Archpriest