Metropolitan Philaret, in the world George Nikolayevich Voznesensky,

was born in the city of Kursk on March 22 / April 4, 1903, into the family of

Protopriest Nicholas. In 1909 the family moved to Blagoveschensk-on-Amur

in the Far East, where the future hierarch finished high school.

In a sermon at his nomination as Bishop of Brisbane, the future

metropolitan said: “There is hardly anything specially worthy of note in my

life, in its childhood and young years, except, perhaps, a recollection from my

early childhood years, when I as a small child of six or seven years in a

childishly naïve way loved to ‘play service’ – I made myself a likeness of a

Church vestment and ‘served’. And when my parents began to forbid me to

do this, Vladyka Evgeny, the Bishop of Blagoveschensk, after watching this

‘service’ of mine at home, to their amazement firmly stopped them: ‘Leave

him, let the boy “serve” in his own way. It is good that he loves the service of

God.’” In this way was the saint’s future service in the Church foretold in a

hidden way already in his childhood.

In 1920 the family was forced to flee from the revolution into Manchuria, to

the city of Harbin. There, in 1921, George’s mother, Lydia Vasilievna, died,

after which his father, Fr. Nicholas, took the monastic tonsure with the name

Demetrius and became Archbishop of Hailar. Vladyka Demetrius was a

learned theologian, the author of a series of books on the history of the

Church and other subjects.

In 1927 George graduated from the Russo-Chinese Polytechnical institute

and received a specialist qualification as an engineer-electrical mechanic.

Later, when he was already First Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside

Russia (ROCOR), he did not forget his friends at the institute. All those who

had known him, both at school and in the institute, remembered him as a

kind, affectionate comrade. He was distinguished by his great abilities and

was always ready to help.

After the institute he got a job as a teacher; he was a good instructor, and

his pupils loved and valued him. But his instructions for the young people

went beyond the bounds of the school programme and penetrated every

aspect of human life. Many of his former pupils and colleagues after meeting

him retained a high estimate of him for the rest of their lives.

Living in the family of a priest, the future metropolitan naturally became

accustomed, from his early years, to the church and the Divine services. But,

as he himself said later, at the beginning there was in this “almost nothing

deep, inwardly apprehended and consciously accepted”.

Sacrifice of Love incarnate, but have rejected it. Remember your end, man,

and you will not sin to the ages.”

In his early years as a priest, Fr. Philaret was greatly helped by the advice

of the then First-Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (+1936), with

whom he corresponded for several years.

He also studied the writings of the holy fathers, and learned by heart all

four Gospels. One of his favourite passages of Scripture was the passage from

the Apocalypse reproaching the lukewarmness of men, their indifference to

the truth. Thus in a sermon on the Sunday of All Saints he said:

“The Orthodox Church is now glorifying all those who have pleased God,

all the saints…, who accepted the holy word of Christ not as something

written somewhere to someone for somebody, but as written to himself; they

accepted it, took it as the guide for the whole of their life and fulfilled the

commandments of Christ.

“… Of course, their life and exploit is for us edification, they are an

example for us, but you yourselves know with what examples life is now

filled! Do we now see many good examples of the Christian life?!…. When

you see what is happening in the world,… you involuntarily think that a man

with a real Orthodox Christian intention is as it were in a desert in the midst

of the earth’s teeming millions. They all live differently… Do you they think

about what awaits them? Do they think that Christ has given us

commandments, not in order that we should ignore them, but in order that

we should try to live as the Church teaches.

“…. We have brought forward here one passage from the Apocalypse, in

which the Lord says to one of the servers of the Church: ‘I know your works:

you are neither cold nor hot. Oh if only you were cold or hot!” We must not

only be hot, but must at least follow the promptings of the soul and fulfil the

law of God.

“But there are those who go against it… But if a man is not sleeping

spiritually, is not dozing, but is experiencing something spiritual somehow,

and if he does not believe in what people are now doing in life, and is

sorrowful about this, but is in any case not dozing, not sleeping – there is

hope that he will come to the Church. Do we not see quite a few examples of

enemies and deniers of God turning to the way of truth? Beginning with the

Apostle Paul…

“In the Apocalypse the Lord says: ‘Oh if only thou wast cold or hot, but

since thou art neither cold nor hot (but lukewarm), I will spew thee out of My

mouth’… This is what the Lord says about those who are indifferent to His

holy work. Now, in actual fact, they do not even think about this. What are

people now not interested in, what do they not stuff into their heads – but

they have forgotten the law of God. Sometimes they say beautiful words. But

what can words do when they are from a person of abominable falsehood?!…

It is necessary to beseech the Lord God that the Lord teach us His holy law, as

it behoves us, and teach us to imitate the example of those people have

accepted this law, have fulfilled it and have, here on earth, glorified Almighty

God.”

Fr. Philaret was very active in ecclesiastical and pastoral-preaching work.

Already in the first years of his priesthood he attracted many people seeking

the spiritual path. The Divine services which he performed with burning

faith, and his inspired sermons brought together worshippers and filled the

churches. Multitudes pressed to the church in which Fr. Philaret was serving.

All sections of the population of Harbin loved him; his name was also known

far beyond the boundaries of the Harbin diocese. He was kind and accessible

to all those who turned to him. Queues of people thirsting to talk with him

stood at the doors of his humble cell; on going to him, people knew that they

would receive correct advice, consolation and help.

Fr. Philaret immediately understood the condition of a man’s soul, and, in

giving advice, consoled the suffering, strengthened the despondent and

cheered up the despairing with an innocent joke. He loved to say: “Do not be

despondent, Christian soul! There is no place for despondency in a believer!

Look ahead – there is the mercy of God!” People went away from him

pacified and strengthened by his strong faith.

In imitation of his name-saint, Fr. Philaret was generous not only in

spiritual, but also in material alms, and secretly gave help to the needy. Many

homeless people turned to him, and he refused help to nobody, except in

those cases in which he literally had nothing left, when he would smile

guiltily and say: “Nothing, my dear!” But then he would find a way out – and

give away the things he was wearing.

Following the example of the holy fathers, Fr. Philaret did not teach others

what he himself did not do. He himself, like the saints, whom he called on

people to imitate, accepted everything written in the Holy Scriptures and the

patristic writings “not as something written somewhere to someone for

somebody,” but as a true guide to life. He was exceptionally strict with

himself and conducted a truly ascetic style of life. He had a rare memory,

keeping in his head not only the words of the Gospel and the holy fathers, but

also the sorrows and woes of his flock. On meeting people the holy hierarch

demonstrated great interest in all sides of their life, he did not need to

remember their needs and difficulties – he himself developed the subject of

conversation that interested a man, and gave ready replies to the perplexities

tormenting him.

From 1931 until 1945 Manchuria with its capital city of Harbin was

occupied by the Japanese. Towards the end of this period the Russians were

called upon to confess their faith; for the Japanese placed a statue of their

goddess Amateras, who according to Japanese tradition was the foundress of

the imperial race, directly opposite the Orthodox cathedral of St. Nicholas.

Then, in May, 1943, they demanded that Russians going to church in the

cathedral should first make a “reverential bow” towards the goddess. It was

also required that on certain days Japanese temples should be venerated,

while a statue of the goddess was to be put in Orthodox churches.

The question of the admissibility of participating in such ritual venerations

was discussed at the diocesan assemblies of the Harbin diocese on September

8 and October 2, 1943, in the presence of the hierarchs of the Harbin diocese:

Metropolitan Meletius, Bishop Demetrius and Bishop Juvenal (Archbishop

Nestor was not present). According to the witness of the secretary of the

Episcopal conference, Fr. Leonid Upshinsky, “the session was stormy, since

some objected that… Amateras was not a goddess but the Ancestress.” It was

decided “to accept completely and direct to the authorities” the reports of

Bishop Demetrius of Hailar and Professor K.I. Zaitsev (the future

Archimandrite Constantine), which expressed the official view of the

episcopate that participation in the ritual venerations was inadmissible.

However, on February 5, 1944 the congress of leaders of the Russian

emigration in Manchuria met in Harbin. The congress opened with a moleben

in the St. Nicholas cathedral, after which the participants went to the Japanese

temple “Harbin-Jinjya”, where they carried out a veneration of the goddess

Amateras. On February 12 the Harbin hierarchs responded with a

archpastoral epistle, in which they said: “Since any kind of veneration of

pagan divinities and temples is forbidden by the commandments of God…,

Orthodox Christians, in obedience to the will of God and his Law, cannot and

must not carry out this veneration, for such venerations contradict the basic

theses of the Orthodox Faith.” Archbishop Nestor refused to sign this epistle.

In March both vicars of the Harbin diocese, Bishop Demetrius and Bishop

Juvenal, were summoned to the police, where they were closely interrogated

about the circumstances of the illegal distribution of the archpastoral epistle

and about the attitude of the flock to this question. On April 28 Metropolitan

Meletius was subjected to interrogation. The conversation, which lasted for

several hours, produced no result. Referring to his extreme exhaustion and

illness, Vladyka Meletius asked that the conversation be continued on May 1.

This again produced no result. Bishop Demetrius, who also took part,

categorically and sharply protested against the venerations.

On May 2, an Episcopal Convention took place (Archbishop Nestor, as

usual, was not present), at which this position was confirmed. Several days

later, Metropolitan Meletius presented the text of the Episcopal Convention to

Mr. Kobayasi. Kobayasi demanded that he give a written promise not to raise

the question of venerations until the end of the war. Metropolitan Meletius

asked that the words “if there will be no compulsion to venerations” should

be added to the text. Vladyka’s demand again elicited a quarrel. However, in

the end Kobayasi gave in. On August 31 the Harbin archpastors sent a letter

to Archbishop Nestor in which they appealed to him “to unite with us, return,

and may your voice sound out in defence of the purity of the Faith and zeal

for its confession. Sign (better late than never) our Archpastoral Epistle and

announce this publicly – in whatever way and place you can.” In reply,

Vladyka Nestor wrote that he did not disagree with his brother archpastors

about the inadmissibility of venerating the temples of Amateras.

An important influence on the Japanese in their eventual climb-down was

the courageous confession of Fr. Philaret. The Japanese seized him and

subjected him to torture. His cheek was torn and his eyes were almost torn

out, but he suffered this patiently. Then they told him: “We have a red-hot

electrical instrument here. Everybody who has had it applied to them has

agreed to our requests. And you will also agree.” The torturer brought the

instrument forward. Then Fr. Philaret prayed to St. Nicholas: “Holy Hierarch

Nicholas, help me, otherwise there may be a betrayal.” The torturer

commenced his work. He stripped the confessor to his waist and started to

burn his spine with the burning iron. Then a miracle took place. Fr. Philaret

could smell his burning flesh, but felt no pain. He felt joyful in his soul. The

torturer could not understand why he was silent, and did not cry out or

writhe from the unbearable pain. Then he turned and looked at his face.

Amazed, he waved his hand, muttered something in Japanese and fled,

conquered by the superhuman power of the confessor’s endurance. Fr.

Philaret was brought, almost dead, to his relatives. There he passed out.

When he came to he said: “I was in hell itself.” Gradually his wounds healed.

Only his eyes were a bit distorted. And the Japanese no longer tried to compel

In 1945 the Soviet armies defeated the Japanese army; later the Chinese

communists took control of Manchuria. In the first days of the “Soviet coup”

the Soviets began to offer Russian émigrés the opportunity to take Soviet

passports. Their agitation was conducted in a skilful manner, very subtly and

cleverly, and the deceived Russian people, exhausted from the hard years of

the Japanese occupation during which everything Russian had been

suppressed, believed that in the USSR there had now come “complete

freedom of religion”, and they began to take passports en masse.

50,000 Russian citizens of Harbin, and every third young person, fell into

the snare. The reality was soon revealed to them. At Atpor station 14,000

people were shot, and the remaining 36,000 were deported to concentration

camps, where most of them perished of hunger and other privations.

Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal writes: “I remember the year 1956, the

Dormition men’s monastery in Odessa, where I was an unwilling witness as

there returned from the camps and prisons, having served their terms, those

hierarchs who returned to Russia after the war so as to unite with the ‘Mother

Church’ at the call of Stalin’s government and the Moscow patriarchate: ‘The

Homeland has forgiven you, the Homeland calls you!’ In 1946 they trustingly

entered the USSR, and were all immediately captured and incarcerated for 10

years, while the ‘Mother Church’ was silent, not raising her voice in defence

of those whom she had beckoned into the trap. In order to be ‘re-established’

in their hierarchical rank, they had to accept and chant hymns to Sergianism,

and accept the Soviet patriarch. And what then? Some of them ended their

lives under house arrest, others in monastery prisons, while others soon

departed for eternity.”

At this time Fr. Philaret was the rector of the church of the holy Iveron icon

in Harbin. There came to him a reporter from a Harbin newspaper asking his

opinion on the “mercifulness” of the Soviet government in offering the

émigrés Soviet passports. He expected to hear words of gratitude and

admiration from Fr. Philaret, too. “But I replied that I categorically refused to

take a passport, since I knew of no ‘ideological’ changes in the Soviet Union,

and, in particular, I did not know how Church life was proceeding there.

However, I knew a lot about the destruction of churches and the persecution

of the clergy and believing laypeople. The person who was questioning me

hastened to interrupt the conversation and leave…”

Soon Fr. Philaret read in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate that Lenin

was the supreme genius and benefactor of mankind. Fr. Philaret could not

stand this lie and from the ambon of the church he indicated to the believers

the whole unrighteousness of this disgraceful affirmation in an ecclesiastical

organ, emphasising that Patriarch Alexis (Simansky), as the editor of the

pannikhidas on the order of, or to please, the Soviet authorities. But even with

such an insistent walling-off from the false church, his canonical dependence

on the MP weighed as a heavy burden on his soul. When the famous

campaign for “the opening up of the virgin lands” was declared in the USSR,

the former émigrés were presented with the opportunity to depart for the

Union. To Fr. Philaret’s sorrow, in 1947 his own father, Archbishop Demetrius

of Hailar, together with several other Bishops, were repatriated to the USSR.

But Fr. Philaret, on his own as before, tirelessly spoke in his flaming sermons

about the lie implanted in the MP and in “the country of the soviets” as a

whole. Not only in private conversations, but also from the ambon, he

explained that going voluntarily to work in a country where communism was

being built and religion was being persecuted, was a betrayal of God and the

Church. He refused outright to serve molebens for those departing on a

journey for those departing for the USSR, insofar as at the foundation of such

a prayer lay a prayer for the blessing of a good intention, while the intention

to go to the Union was not considered by Fr. Philaret to be good, and he could

not lie to God and men. That is how he spoke and acted during his life in

China.

Such a firm and irreconcilable position in relation to the MP and the Soviet

authorities could not remain unnoticed. Fr. Philaret was often summoned by

the Chinese authorities for interrogations, at one of which he was beaten. In

October, 1960 they even tried to kill him…

As he himself recounted the story, at two o’clock on a Sunday morning Fr.

Philaret got up from bed because of a strange smell in his house. He went to

the living-room, in the corner of which was a larder. From under the doors of

the larder there was coming out smoke with a sharp, corrosive smell. Then he

went to the lavatory, poured water into a bowl, returned to the larder and,

opening the doors, threw the water in the direction of the smoke. Suddenly

there was an explosion and a flash. The fire burned him, while the wave of

the explosion lifted him up and hurled him with enormous force across the

whole length of the living-room and against the door leading out.

Fortunately, the door opened outwards: from the force of his flying body the

bolts were broken, and he fell on the ground deafened but alive. On coming

to, he saw the whole of his house on fire like a torch. He understood that the

explosion had been caused by a thermal bomb set to go off and burn down

the house at a precise time.

During this night, at about midnight, a certain Zinaida Lvovna, one of the

sisters of the church of the House of Mercy, came out of her house, which was

situated opposite the church across the street, and saw some fire engines in

the street near the church – but there was no fire. This unusual concourse of

fire engines surprised her. About two hours later, when the sound of the

bomb awoke her, she immediately went out into the street and saw the fire,

which the fire-fighters had already managed to put out. Fr. Philaret was

standing on the threshold of the church shaking from the cold and suffering

from burns and concussion. Zinaida Lvovna immediately understood that the

fire had been started by the communists with the purpose of killing Fr.

Philaret. She quickly crossed the street and invited him to enter her house.

But the Chinese firemen, on seeing Archimandrite Philaret alive, accused

him of starting the fire and wanted to arrest him. However, the quick-witted

Zinaida Lvovna quickly turned to the chief fireman and said: “It looks like

you put your fire engines here in advance, knowing that a fire was about to

begin. Who told you beforehand that about the fire?” The fire chief was at a

loss for words and could not immediately reply. Meanwhile, Zinaida Lvovna

and Fr. Philaret went into her house. She put him in a room without windows

because she knew that the communists might enter through a window and

kill him.

The next day, some young people came early to the Sunday service, but the

church was closed, and the house in which Fr. Philaret lived was burned to

the ground. The twenty-year-old future pastor, Fr. Alexis Mikrikov came and

learned from Zinaida Lvovna what had happened during the night. He asked

to see Fr. Philaret. Immediately he saw that the saint was extremely exhausted

and ill. His burned cheek was dark brown in colour. But the look in his eyes

was full of firm submission to the will of God and joyful service to God and

men. Suddenly Fr. Alexis heard him say: “Congratulations on the feast!” as he

would say “Christ is risen!” Tears poured down the face of Fr. Alexis in reply.

He had not wept since his childhood, and here he was, a twenty-year-old

man, on his knees before the confessor, weeping and kissing his hand.

As a consequence of the interrogations and burns he suffered, for the rest

of his life Fr. Philaret retained a small, sideways inclination of his head and a

certain distortion of the lower part of his face; his vocal chords also suffered.

Two months passed. Fr. Philaret again began to serve, and within half a

year he was able to live on his own in a separate maisonette above the church.

But then he again went to Zinaida Lvovna. The reason was that he had gone

into his cell after the service, but suddenly saw two big boots sticking out

from under the curtain. Understanding that an assassin sent by the

communists was standing there, he went to the chest of drawers, took

something out to divert attention, and then quickly left the cell, locking it

behind him. After this a Chinese policeman came to Zinaida Lvovna and

asked her why Archimandrite Philaret did not sleep in his cell. She

immediately understood what he was on about, and replied: because of his

physical weakness.

Soon after this Fr. Philaret, through his spiritual sight, discovered a portrait

of satan under the altar in the church of the House of Mercy. The portrait was

immediately removed…

Archimandrite Philaret left China in 1961, only after almost the whole of

his flock had left Harbin.

On March 29, 1962 the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Church Abroad

“heard a letter of Archimandrite Philaret (Voznesensky) to the president of

the Synod on his arrival in Hong Kong and his repentance over the fact that in

1945 he had entered the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and also a

penitential declaration signed by him in accordance with the form established

by the Council of Bishops” in 1959.

The form in question was as follows: “I, the undersigned, a former

clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate, ordained to the rank of deacon (by

such-and-such a bishop in such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time)

and ordained to the rank of presbyter (by such-and-such a bishop in suchand-

such a place at such-and-such a time) and having passed through my

service (in such-and-such parishes), petition that I be received into the clergy

of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

“I am sincerely sorry that I was among the clergy of the Moscow

Patriarchate, which is in union with the God-fighting authorities.

“I sweep aside all the lawless acts of the Moscow hierarchy in connection

with its support of the God-fighting authorities and I promise from now on to

be faithful and obedient to the lawful hierarchy of the Russian Church

Abroad.”

“While striving to guard my flock from Soviet falsehood and lies,”

recounted the metropolitan, “I myself sometimes felt inexpressibly oppressed

– to the point that I several times came close to the decision to leave

altogether, to cease serving. And I was stopped only by the thought of my

flock: how could I leave these little ones? If I went and stopped serving, that

would mean that they would have to enter into service to the Soviets and hear

prayers for the forerunners of the Antichrist – ‘Lord, preserve them for many

years,’ etc. This stopped me and forced me to carry out my duty to the end.

“And when, finally, with the help of God I managed to extract myself from

red China, the first thing I did was turn to the First Hierarch of the Russian

Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasy, with a request that he consider me

again to be in the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad. Vladyka

Metropolitan replied with mercy and love, and immediately blessed me to

serve in Hong Kong already as a priest of the Synodal jurisdiction, and

pointed out that every church server passing into this jurisdiction from the

jurisdiction of Moscow must give a special penitential declaration to the effect

that he is sorry about his (albeit involuntary) stay in the Moscow jurisdiction.

I did this immediately.”

Soon Fr. Philaret flew to Australia and arrived in Sydney. The ruling

Archbishop of Australia accepted him with joy and love, and already in the

first weeks of Fr. Philaret’s stay in Australia began to speak about the

possibility of ordaining him as a Bishop. Archimandrite Philaret considered

himself weak and unworthy of such a lofty service. However, the experience

of monastic obedience did not allow him to decline from the path to which

ecclesiastical authority summoned him. On May 26, 1963 he was consecrated

Bishop of Brisbane, a vicariate of the Australian diocese, by Archbishop

Sabbas of Sydney and Bishop Anthony of Melbourne.

In his sermon at his nomination as Bishop Archimandrite Philaret said to

the Archpastors who were present:

“Holy Hierarchs of God! I have thought and felt much in these last days, I

have reviewed and examined the whole of my life – and… I see, on the one

hand, a chain of innumerable benefactions from God, and on the other – the

countless number of my sins… And so raise your hierarchical prayers for my

wretchedness in this truly terrible hour of my ordination, that the Lord, the

First of Pastors, Who through your holiness is calling me to the height of this

service, may not deprive me, the sinful and wretched one, of a place and lot

among His chosen ones…

“One hierarch-elder, on placing the hierarchical staff in the hands of a

newly appointed bishop, said to him: ‘Do not be like a milestone on the way,

that points out for others the road ahead, but itself remains in its place…’

Pray also for this, Fathers and Archpastors, that in preaching to others, I

myself may not turn out to be an idle slave.”

On May 14/27, 1964, having been for many years First Hierarch of

ROCOR, Metropolitan Anastasy, for reasons of health and age, petitioned the

Hierarchical Council for his retirement. The question arose who would be the

new First Hierarch. Some members of ROCOR wanted to see the holy

Hierarch John (Maximovich) as their head, but another part was very

opposed to this. Then, to avoid any further aggravation of the situation, and a

possible scandal and even schism, the Hierarch John removed his candidacy

and suggested making the youngest Hierarch, Bishop Philaret, First Hierarch.

According to another source, the suggestion was made by Archbishop Sabbas.

This choice was supported by Metropolitan Anastasy: Vladyka Philaret was

the youngest by ordination, had mixed little in Church Abroad circles, and

had not managed to join any “party”.

And so Bishop Philaret of Brisbane was elected to the First Hierarchical see

by the Hierarchical Council of ROCOR, and was enthroned by Metropolitan

Anastasy himself in a service that, for the first time in centuries, used the

ancient text for the enthroning of a metropolitan of Moscow.

Almost immediately, in his 1965 Epistle “to Orthodox Bishops and all who

hold dear the Fate of the Russian Church”, Metropolitan Philaret made clear

his completely uncompromising attitude to the Moscow Patriarchate and his

great love for the Catacomb Church. In view of the continuing relevance of

his words, when the gracelessness of the Moscow Patriarchate is understood

by few, we quote it in full:

“In recent days the Soviet Government in Moscow and various parts of the

world celebrated a new anniversary of the October Revolution of 1917 which

brought it to power.

“We, on the other hand, call to mind in these days the beginning of the

way of the cross for the Russian Orthodox Church, upon which from that

time, as it were, all the powers of hell have fallen.

“Meeting resistance on the part of Archpastors, pastors, and laymen strong

in spirit, the Communist power, in its fight with religion, began from the very

first days the attempt to weaken the Church not only by killing those of her

leaders who were strongest in spirit, but also by means of the artificial

creation of schisms.

Thus arose the so-called ''Living Church" and the renovationist movement,

which had the character of a Church tied to a Protestant-Communist

reformation. Notwithstanding the support of the Government, this schism

was crushed by the inner power of the Church. It was too clear to believers

that the ‘Renovated Church’ was uncanonical and altered Orthodoxy. For this

reason people did not follow it.

“The second attempt, after the death of Patriarch Tikhon and the rest of the

locum tenentes of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Peter, had greater

success. The Soviet power succeeded in 1927 in sundering in part the inner

unity of the Church. By confinement in prison, torture, and special methods it

broke the will of the vicar of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan

Sergius, and secured from him the proclamation of a declaration of the

complete loyalty of the Church to the Soviet power, even to the point where

the joys and successes of the Soviet Union were declared by the Metropolitan

to the joys and successes of the Church, and its failures to be her

failures. What can be more blasphemous than such an idea, which was justly

appraised by many at that time as an attempt to unite light with darkness,

and Christ with Belial. Both Patriarch Tikhon and Metropolitan Peter, as well

as others who served as locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne, had earlier

refused to sign a similar declaration, for which they were subjected to arrest,

imprisonment, and banishment.

“Protesting against this declaration—which was proclaimed by

Metropolitan Sergius by himself alone, without the agreement of the

suppressed majority of the episcopate of the Russian Church, violating thus

the 34th Apostolic Canon—many bishops who were then in the death camp at

Solovki wrote to the Metropolitan: ‘Any government can sometimes make

decisions that are foolish, unjust, cruel, to which the Church is forced to

submit, but which she cannot rejoice over or approve. One of the aims of the

Soviet Government is the extirpation of religion, but the Church cannot

acknowledge its successes in this direction as her own successes’ (Open Letter

from Solovki, September 27, 1927).

“The courageous majority of the sons of the Russian Church did not accept

the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, considering that a union of the

Church with the godless Soviet State, which had set itself the goal of

annihilating Christianity in general, could not exist on principle.

“But a schism nonetheless occurred. The minority, accepting the

declaration, formed a central administration, the so-called ‘Moscow

Patriarchate,’ which, while being supposedly officially recognized by the

authorities, in actual fact received no legal rights whatever from them; for

they continued, now without hindrance, a most cruel persecution of the

Church. In the words of Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd, Metropolitan

Sergius, having proclaimed the declaration, entered upon the path of

‘monstrous arbitrariness, flattery, and betrayal of the Church to the interests

of atheism and the destruction of the Church.’

“The majority, renouncing the declaration, began an illegal ecclesiastical

existence. Almost all the bishops were tortured and killed in death camps,

among them the locum tenentes Metropolitan Peter and Metropolitan Cyril of

Kazan, who was respected by all, and Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, who

was shot to death at the end of 1938, as well as many other bishops and

thousands of priests, monks, nuns, and courageous laymen. Those bishops

and clergy who miraculously remained alive began to live illegally and to

serve Divine services secretly, hiding themselves from the authorities and

originating in this fashion the Catacomb Church in the Soviet Union.

“Little news of this Church has come to the free world. The Soviet press

long kept silent about her, wishing to give the impression that all believers in

the USSR stood behind the Moscow Patriarchate. They even attempted to

deny entirely the existence of the Catacomb Church.

“But then, after the death of Stalin and the exposure of his activity, and

especially after the fall of Khrushchev, the Soviet press has begun to write

more and more often on the secret Church in the USSR, calling it the ‘sect’ of

True-Orthodox Christians. It was apparently impossible to keep silence about

it any longer; its numbers are too great and it causes the authorities too much

alarm.

“Unexpectedly in the Atheist Dictionary (Moscow, 1964), on pages 123 and

124 the Catacomb Church is openly discussed. '’True-Orthodox Christians,’

we read in the Dictionary, ‘an Orthodox sect, originating in the years 1922-24.

It was organized in 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius proclaimed the principle

of loyalty to the Soviet power.’ ‘Monarchist’ (we would say ecclesiastical)

‘elements, having united around Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovykh) of

Leningrad' (Petrograd)— the Josephites,’ or, as the same Dictionary says, the

Tikhonites, formed in 1928 a guiding centre, the True-Orthodox Church, and

united all groups and elements which came out against the Soviet order’ (we

may add from ourselves, ‘atheist’ order). ‘The True-Orthodox Church

directed unto the villages a multitude of monks and nuns,’ for the most part

of course priests, we add again from ourselves, who celebrated Divine

services and rites secretly and ‘conducted propaganda against the leadership

of the Orthodox Church,’ i.e, against the Moscow Patriarchate which had

given in to the Soviet power, ‘appealing to people not to submit to Soviet

laws,’ which are directed, quite apparently, against the Church of Christ and

faith. By the testimony of the Atheist Dictionary, the True-Orthodox Christians

organized and continue to organize house, 'i.e., secret, catacomb churches and

monasteries... preserving in full the doctrine and rites of Orthodoxy.’ They ‘do

not acknowledge the authority of the Orthodox Patriarch,’ i.e., the successor

of Metropolitan Sergius, Patriarch Alexis.

“’Striving to fence off’ the True-Orthodox Christians ‘from the influence of

Soviet reality,’ chiefly of course from atheist propaganda, ‘their leaders...

make use of the myth of Antichrist, who has supposedly been ruling in the

world since 1917.’ The anti-Christian nature of the Soviet power is undoubted

for any sound-thinking person, and all the more for a Christian.

“True Orthodox Christians ‘usually refuse to participate in elections,’

which in the Soviet Union, a country deprived of freedom, are simply a

comedy, ‘and other public functions; they do not accept pensions, do not

allow their children to go to school beyond the fourth class...’ Here is an

unexpected Soviet testimony of the truth, to which nothing need be added.

“Honour and praise to the True-Orthodox Christians, heroes of the spirit

and confessors, who have not bowed before the terrible power, which can

stand only by terror and force and has become accustomed to the abject

flattery of its subjects. The Soviet rulers fall into a rage over the fact that there

exist people who fear God more than men. They are powerless before the

millions of True-Orthodox Christians.

“However, besides the True Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union and the

Moscow Patriarchate, which have communion neither of prayer nor of any

other kind with each other, there exists yet a part of the Russian Church—free

from oppression and persecution by the atheists the Russian Orthodox

Church Outside of Russia. She has never broken the spiritual and prayerful

bonds with the Catacomb Church in the home land. After the last war many

members of this Church appeared abroad and entered into the Russian

Church Outside Russia, and thus the bond between these two Churches was

strengthened yet more—a bond which has been sustained illegally up to the

present time. As time goes on, it becomes all the stronger and better

established.

“The part of the Russian Church that is abroad and free is called upon to

speak in the free world in the name of the persecuted Catacomb Church in the

Soviet Union; she reveals to all the truly tragic condition of believers in the

USSR, which the atheist power so carefully hushes up, with the aid of the

Moscow Patriarchate, she calls on those who have not lost shame and

conscience to help the persecuted.

“This is why it is our sacred duty to watch over the existence of the

Russian Church Outside of Russia. The Lord, the searcher of hearts, having

permitted His Church to be subjected to oppression, persecution, and

deprivation of all rights in the godless Soviet State, has given us, Russian

exiles, in the free world the talent of freedom, and He expects from us the

increase of this talent and a skilful use of it. And we have not the right to hide

it in the earth. Let no one dare to say to us that we should do this, let no

one push us to a mortal sin. For the fate of our Russian Church we, Russian

bishops, are responsible before God, and no one in the world can free us from

this sacred obligation. No one can understand better than we what is

happening in our homeland, of which no one can have any doubt. Many

times foreigners, even Orthodox people and those vested with high

ecclesiastical rank, have made gross errors in connection with the

Russian Church and false conclusions concerning her present condition. May

God forgive them this, since they do not know what they are doing.

“We shall not cease to accuse the godless persecutors of faith and those

who evilly cooperate with them under the exterior of supposed

representatives of the Church. In this the Russian Church Outside of Russia

has always seen one of her important tasks. Knowing this, the Soviet power

through its agents wages with her a stubborn battle, not hesitating to use any

means: lies, bribes, gifts, and intimidation. We, however, shall not suspend

our accusation.

“Declaring this before the face of the whole world, I appeal to all our

brothers in Christ—Orthodox bishops—and to all people who hold dear the

fate of the persecuted Russian Church as a part of the Universal Church of

Christ, for understanding, support, and their holy prayers. As for our

spiritual children, we call on them to hold firmly to the truth of Orthodoxy,

witnessing of her both by one's word and especially by a prayerful, devout

Christian life.”

The new metropolitan faced a daunting task. For he had, on the one hand,

to lead his Church in decisively denouncing the apostasy of World

Orthodoxy, communion with which could no longer be tolerated. And on the

other, he had to preserve unity among the members of his own Synod, some

of whom were in spirit closer to “World Orthodoxy” than True Orthodoxy…

While Metropolitan Philaret was first-hierarch, ecumenism finally showed

its true face – the mask of a terrible heresy uniting in itself all the earlier

heresies and striving to engulf Orthodoxy completely, destroying the very

concept of the Church of Christ and creating a universal “church” of the

antichrist. An important turning-point came in 1964, when, in defiance of the

holy canons, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople

prayed together in Jerusalem, and in December, 1965 they “lifted the

anathemas” placed by the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches on each

other in 1054.

At this critical point the Lord raised Metropolitan Philaret to explain to the

ecumenist Orthodox the essence of the danger into which they were falling. In

the first of a series of “Sorrowful Epistles”, on December 2/15, 1965, he wrote

to Patriarch Athenagoras protesting against his action: “The organic

belonging of the Orthodox to the union of the contemporary heretics does not

sanctify the latter, while it tears away the Orthodox entering into it from

Catholic Orthodox Unity… Your gesture puts a sign of equality between error

and truth. For centuries all the Orthodox Churches believed with good

reasons that it has violated no doctrine of the Holy Ecumenical Councils;

whereas the Church of Rome has introduced a number of innovations in its

dogmatic teaching. The more such innovations were introduced, the deeper

was to become the separation between the East and the West. The doctrinal

deviations of Rome in the eleventh century did not yet contain the errors that

were added later. Therefore the cancellation of the mutual excommunication

of 1054 could have been of meaning at that time, but now it is only evidence

of indifference in regard to the most important errors, namely new doctrines

foreign to the ancient Church, of which some, having been exposed by St.

Mark of Ephesus, were the reason why the Church rejected the Union of

Florence… No union of the Roman Church with us is possible until it

renounces its new doctrines, and no communion in prayer can be restored

with it without a decision of all the Churches, which, however, can hardly be

possible before the liberation of the Church of Russia which at present has to

live in the catacombs… A true dialogue implies an exchange of views with a

possibility of persuading the participants to attain an agreement. As one can

perceive from the Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI understands the

dialogue as a plan for our union with Rome with the help of some formula

which would, however, leave unaltered its doctrines, and particularly its

dogmatic doctrine about the position of the Pope in the Church. However,

any compromise with error is foreign to the history of the Orthodox Church

and to the essence of the Church. It could not bring a harmony in the

confessions of the Faith, but only an illusory outward unity similar to the

conciliation of dissident Protestant communities in the ecumenical

movement.”

In his second Epistle, written in 1969, Metropolitan Philaret said that he

had decided to turn to all the hierarchs, “some of whom occupy the oldest

and most glorious sees”, because, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian,

“the truth is betrayed by silence”, and it is impossible to keep silent when you

see a deviation from the purity of Orthodoxy – after all, every bishop at his

ordination gives a promise to keep the Faith and the canons of the holy

fathers and defend Orthodoxy from heresies. The holy metropolitan quoted

various ecumenist declarations of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and

clearly showed, on the basis of the patristic teaching and the canons, that the

position of the WCC had nothing in common with Orthodoxy, and

consequently the Orthodox Churches should not participate in the work of

this council. He also emphasised that the voice of the MP was not the voice of

the True Russian Church, which was persecuted and concealed itself in the

catacombs. He called on all the Orthodox hierarchs to stand up in defence of

the purity of Orthodoxy.

On December 16, 1969 the MP Synod decided “that in cases where Old

Believers and Catholics ask the Orthodox Church to administer the holy

sacraments to them, this is not forbidden.”

ROCOR’s Archbishop Averky commented on this decision: “Now, even if

some entertained some sort of doubts about how we should regard the

contemporary Moscow Patriarchate, and whether we can consider it

Orthodox after its intimate union with the enemies of God, the persecutors of

the Faith and Christ’s Church, these doubts must now be completely

dismissed: by the very fact that it has entered into liturgical communion with

the Papists, it has

Eighteen months later, on September 15/28, 1971 a decree of the

Hierarchical Council confirmed this decision: “The lack of accord of the

decree of the Moscow Patriarchate, concerning the granting of communion to

Roman Catholics, with Orthodox dogmatic teaching and the Church canons is

completely clear to any person even slightly informed in theology. It was

justly condemned by a decree of the Synod of the Church of Greece. The holy

canons do permit the communication of a great sinner who is under penance

(epitimia) when he is about to die (I Ecumenical 13, Carthage 6, Gregory of

Nyssa 2 and 5), but there is not a single canon which would extend this to

include persons foreign to the Orthodox Church, as long as they have not

renounced their false doctrines. No matter what explanation Metropolitan

Nicodemus and the other Moscow hierarchs might try to give of this act, it is

completely clear that by this decision, even though with certain limitations,

communion has been established between the Moscow Patriarchate and

Roman Catholics. Furthermore, the latter have already made the decision to

permit members of the Orthodox Church to receive communion from them.

All this was particularly clearly demonstrated in the service held on

December 14, 1970, in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, when Metropolitan

Nicodemus gave communion to Catholic clerics. It is perfectly clear that this

act could not be justified by any need. By this act the Moscow Patriarchate has

betrayed Orthodoxy. If the 45th Canon of the Holy Apostles excommunicates

from the Church an Orthodox bishop or cleric who has ‘only prayed together

with heretics’, and the 10th Apostolic Canon forbids even prayer together

with those who are excommunicated, what can we say about a bishop who

dares to offer the Holy Mysteries to them? If catechumens must leave the

church before the sanctification of the Gifts and are not permitted even at

point of death to receive communion until they are united to the Church, how

can one justify the communicating of persons who, being members of

heretical communities, are much farther away from the Church than a

catechumen, who is preparing to unite with her? The act of the Moscow

Synod, which was confirmed by the recent Council of the Moscow

Patriarchate in Moscow, extends the responsibility for this un-Orthodox

decision to all participants of the Moscow Council and to their entire Church

organization. The decision to admit Catholics to communion is an act that is

not only anticanonical, but heretical as well, as inflicting harm on the

Orthodox doctrine of the Church, since only true members of the Church are

called to communicate of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The

Moscow decree, logically considered, recognizes as her members those who,

through their doctrinal errors, in both heart and mind are far from her.”

The metropolitan wrote a third “Sorrowful Epistle” on the Sunday of

Orthodoxy, 1972. In it he noted that although in the last two years hierarchs

had made declarations about the heterodoxy of the ecumenical movement,

not one Orthodox Church had declared that it was leaving the WCC. His aim

in writing this fresh epistle was “to show that abyss of heresy against the very

concept of the Church into which all the participants in the ecumenical

movement are being drawn”. He recalled the threatening prophecy of the

Apostle Paul that to those who will not receive “the love of the truth for

salvation” the Lord will send “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure

in unrighteousness” (II Thessalonians 2.10-12).

A fourth Epistle, written in 1975, was devoted to the so-called “Thyateira

Confession” of Metropolitan Athenagoras [of Thyateira and Great Britain],

the exarch of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate in Europe – a document

written in a completely heretical spirit, but which did not elicit any reaction

from the leaders of the official churches. Evidently Metropolitan Philaret

hoped at the beginning that at any rate one of the bishops of ‘World

Orthodoxy’ might listen to his words, which is why he addressed them in his

epistles as true Archpastors of the Church. Besides, attempts at exhortation

corresponded to the apostolic command: ‘A man that is a heretic after the first

and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and

sinneth, being condemned of himself’ (Titus 3. 10-11). It was fitting, before

accepting an anathema against the apostates, to try and convert them from

their error.

Alas, no conversion took place, and the ecumenical impiety continued to

pour out. And so the saint continued to explain the danger of the new heresy,

which encompassed all the old heresies into a heresy of heresies.

Thus while telling about the zeal of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker, who

slapped the face of Arius when he blasphemed against the Son of God,

Vladyka said: “O how often we do not have enough of such zeal when it is

really necessary to speak for the insulted and trodden-on truth! I want to tell

you about one incident that took place not long ago and which it would have

been difficult even to imagine several years ago – and now we are going

further and further downhill all the time. One man came from Paris and said

that the following incident had taken place at a so-called ‘ecumenical

meeting’. Of course, you know what ecumenism is; it is the heresy of heresies.

It wants to completely wipe out the concept of the Orthodox Church as the

guardian of the Truth, and to create some kind of new, strange church. And

so there took place this ‘ecumenical meeting’. Present were a so-called

Orthodox protopriest from the Paris Theological (more exactly, heretical)

Institute, a Jewish rabbi, a pastor and a Catholic priest. At first they sort of

prayed, and then began the speeches. And then (forgive me for saying such

things from the holy ambon, but I want to show you what we have come to)

the Jewish rabbi said that the Lord Jesus Christ was the illegitimate son of a

dissolute woman…

“But that’s not the main horror. The Jewish people has opposed God for a

long time… - so there’s nothing surprising in this. But the horror was that

when he said this everyone was silent. Later, a man who had heard this

terrible blasphemy asked the ‘Orthodox’ protopriest: ‘How could you keep

silent?’ He replied: ‘I didn’t want to offend this Jew.’ It’s wrong to offend a

Jew, but to insult the All-Pure Virgin Mary is permitted! Look at the state we

have come to! How often does it happen to us all now that we do not have the

zeal to stand up, when necessary, in defence of our holy things! The Orthodox

cleric must zealously stand up against blasphemy, just as the holy Hierarch

Nicholas stopped the mouth of the heretic… But now, unfortunately, we have

become, as the saying goes, ‘shamefully indifferent to both the evil and the

good’. And it is precisely in the soil of this indifference, of a kind of feeling of

self-preservation, that the heresy of ecumenism has established itself – as also

apostasy, that falling away which is becoming more and more evident… Let

us remember, brethren, that Christian love embraces all in itself, is

compassionate to all, wishes that all be saved and is sorry for, and merciful to,

and loves every creature of God; but where it sees a conscious assault on the

truth it turns into fiery zeal which cannot bear any such blasphemy… And so

must it always be, because every Orthodox Christian must always be zealous

for God.”

In addition to issuing his “Sorrowful Epistles”, Metropolitan Philaret and

his Synod took concrete measures to guard his flock against the heresy of

ecumenism. It was especially necessary to make clear that Catholics and

Protestants were not inside the True Church. And so in 1971 it was decreed

that all Catholics and Protestants coming to the Orthodox Church should be

received by full threefold immersion baptism.

This re-establishment of the canonical norms in relation to the reception of

heretics increased the prestige of ROCOR among all those seeking the truth of

Orthodoxy, and many converts from western confessions, as well as

Orthodox from other, ecumenical jurisdictions, sought refuge in ROCOR.

While rebuking the apostasy of the “World Orthodox” who took part in

the World Council of Churches, Metropolitan Philaret was zealous to

establish relations with other truly confessing Churches. Thus in December,

1969, under his leadership, the Synod of ROCOR officially recognised the

validity of the ordinations of the “Florinite” branch of the Greek Old

Calendarists.

In September, 1971 communion was also established with the

“Matthewite” branch of the same Church.

On September 20, 1975, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Metropolitan

Epiphanius of Kition, the leader of the Old Calendarist Church of Cyprus:

“From the beginning our Russian Church has known that the calendar

innovation was unacceptable, and has not dared to move this boundary set by

patristic tradition, for the Ecclesiastical Calendar is a support of the life of the

Church and as such is fortified by decrees of Holy Tradition.

“However, it is obvious to all that the calendar innovation caused a schism

in the Greek Church in 1924, and the responsibility for the schism weighs

exclusively on the innovators. This is the conclusion that will be reached by

anyone studying the Patriarchal Tomoi (as that of 1583) and taking into

account the wretched and self-evident fact of the schism and the frightful

punishments, persecutions and blasphemies which those who have cleaved to

the patristic piety of Holy Tradition have undergone.

“Thinking in this way, our Holy Synod has decreed that we ‘flee’

concelebrations with the new calendarist modernists. We do not concelebrate

with them, nor do we give permission or a blessing to our clergy for such a

concelebration. In order to assure you of the truth of what we say, we inform

you that whenever a community in the diaspora is received into our Church,

they are required to follow the patristic Calendar of the Orthodox Church…”

In 1977 the metropolitan received under his omophorion fourteen priests

of the Russian Catacomb Church who were without an archpastor, thereby

marking the beginning of the return of ROCOR to the Russian land. He had a

lofty estimate of the exploit of the catacombniks and used to cite the example

of the catacomb nuns who refused to carry out the commands of the godless

authorities and received for their firmness the miraculous help of God – they

did not freeze after several hours in the icy wind which the chekists had put

them with the intention of killing them thereby. He used to say: “If the whole

multi-million mass of Russian people were to display such faithfulness as

these nuns displayed, and refused to obey the robbers who have planted

themselves on the Russian people – communism would fall in a moment, for

the people would receive the same help from God as miraculously saved the

nuns who went to certain death. But as long as the people recognises this

power and obeys it, even if with curses in their soul, this power will remain in

place.”

The decision of the MP to give communion to Catholics put the other

Russian jurisdiction in North America, the American Metropolia, into a

difficult position; for in the early 1960s the Metropolia (a body in schism from

ROCOR since 1946) had been, through Fr. Georges Florovsky, among the

most conservative participants in the ecumenical movement. However, this

Church had been secretly negotiating with the Moscow Patriarchate for a

grant of autocephaly. According to the deal eventually agreed upon, the

patriarchate was to declare the Metropolia to be the autocephalous Orthodox

Church of America (OCA) in exchange for the Japanese parishes of the

Metropolia coming within the jurisdiction of the patriarchate. And yet the

MP’s parishes in America did not pass into the OCA, but remained directly

under the patriarchate!

This deal, which was recognized by none of the Local Churches and was to

the advantage, in the long run, only of the MP and the KGB (it was

engineered by the KGB General Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad), was

made public in December, 1969 – just at the moment that the patriarchate

announced that it had entered into partial communion with the Catholics.

Thus the former Metropolia found that it had been granted autocephaly by a

Church that was now in communion with the Catholics. Naturally, this dealt

a death blow to such anti-ecumenist opinion as still existed in that Church.

In 1971 the ROCOR Council of Bishops passed over the heretical aspect of

the matter, and concentrated on the illegality of the church that had given the

autocephaly: “The Council of Bishops, having listened to the report of the

Synod of Bishops concerning the so-called Metropolia’s having received

autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Moscow, approves all the steps taken in

due course by the Synod of Bishops to convince Metropolitan Irenaeus and

his colleagues of the perniciousness of a step which deepens the division

which was the result of the decision of the Cleveland Council of 1946 which

broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

“The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the

Patriarchate of Moscow, which has not possessed genuine canonical

succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon from the time when

Metropolitan Sergius, who later called himself Patriarch, violated his oath

with regard to Metropolitan Peter, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne,

and set out upon a path which was then condemned by the senior hierarchs of

the Church of Russia. Submitting all the more to the commands of the

atheistic, anti-Christian regime, the Patriarchate of Moscow has ceased to be

that which expresses the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church. For this

reason, as the Synod of Bishops has correctly declared, none of its acts,

including the bestowal of autocephaly upon the American Metropolia, has

legal force. Furthermore, apart from this, this act, which affects the rights of

many Churches, has elicited definite protests on the part of a number of

Orthodox Churches, who have even severed communion with the American

Metropolia.

“Viewing this illicit act with sorrow, and acknowledging it to be null and

void, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of

Russia, which has hitherto not abandoned hope for the restoration of

ecclesiastical unity in America, sees in the declaration of American

autocephaly a step which will lead the American Metropolia yet farther away

from the ecclesiastical unity of the Church of Russia. Perceiving therein a

great sin against the enslaved and suffering Church of Russia, the Council of

Bishops

In 1974 the Third All-Emigration Council of ROCOR took place in the

monastery of the Holy Trinity in Jordanville, New York. Just as the First

Council, held at Karlovtsy in 1921, had defined the relationship of ROCOR to

the Bolshevik regime and the Romanov dynasty; and the Second Council,

held in Belgrade in 1938, defined her relationship to the Church inside Russia;

so the Third Council tried to define her relationship to the ecumenical and

dissident movements. As Metropolitan Philaret, president of the Council, said

in his keynote address: “First of all, the Council must declare not only for the

Russian flock, but for the entire Church, its concept of the Church; to reveal

the dogma of the Church… The Council must determine the place our Church

Abroad holds within contemporary Orthodoxy, among the other ‘so-called’

churches. We say ‘so-called’ for though now they often speak of many

‘churches’, the Church of Christ is single and One.”

Here the metropolitan was hinting that faithfulness to the dogma of the

One Church was not compatible with communion with “World Orthodoxy”,

the Local Orthodox Churches that participated in the ecumenical movement.

However, such a vision of ROCOR was not shared by all her hierarchs. Some

saw the isolation of ROCOR from other local Churches as necessitated, not so

much by the struggle against ecumenism, as by the need to preserve

the degree necessary, maybe, that life goes on, and the sickness of ecumenism

deepens and widens more and more. Condescension, oikonomia, must under

different circumstances be applied differently, and to different degrees. In

doses too great it can betray the Truth.” Then Archbishop Anthony of Los

Angeles recalled that “we have many Greek [Old Calendarist] parishes. Our

concelebration with the new calendarists was very bitter for them.”

Another important issue that divided the hierarchs was the attitude that

needed to be taken to the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1971 the MP elected a new

patriarch, which drew two resolutions from the Hierarchical Council of

ROCOR. The first, dated September 1/14, declared: “The free part of the

Russian Church, which is beyond the frontiers of the USSR, is heart and soul

with the confessors of the faith who… are called ‘the True Orthodox

Christians’, and who often go by the name of ‘the Catacomb Church’… The

Council of Bishops recognizes its spiritual unity with them…”

The second, of the same date, is called “Resolution of the Russian

Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Concerning the Election of Pimen

(Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow”: “All of the elections of Patriarchs in

Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the

Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to

which, ‘if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive

through them Episcopal authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and

excommunicated along with all those in communion with him’. The

significance that the Fathers of the 7th Council gave to such an offence is

obvious from the very fact of a double punishment for it, that is, not only

deposition but excommunication as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical

law. The famous commentator on Canon Law, Bishop Nicodemus of

Dalmatia, gives the following explanation of the 30th Canon of the Holy

Apostles: ‘If the Church condemned unlawful influence by the secular

authorities in the ordination of bishops at a time when the rulers were

Christians, then it follows that She should condemn such action all the more

when the latter are pagans and place even heavier penalties on the guilty

parties, who were not ashamed of asking for help from pagan rulers and the

authorities subordinated to them, in order to gain the episcopate. This (30th)

Canon has such cases in view’. If in defence of this position examples are

given of the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were placed on the Throne at

the caprice of the Turkish Sultans, one can reply that no anomaly can be

regarded as a norm and that one breach of Canon Law cannot justify another.

“The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at

the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow the 2nd

of June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical

Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be regarded as

unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having no strength.”

However, ROCOR’s attitude to the MP was complicated by the

phenomenon known as “the dissident movement” in the Soviet Union. The

dissidents were courageous opponents of the Soviet regime and supporters of

human rights whose activity affected both the political sphere (for example,

Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn) and the religious sphere (Solzhenitsyn again, the

priests Eshliman, Yakunin and Dudko, the layman Boris Talantov).

One of the most famous dissidents, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, had been

expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974 and now turned up at ROCOR’s All-

Diaspora Council, although he was a member of the MP, at the invitation of

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva. He promptly created a sensation by

declaring that he did not believe in the existence of the Catacomb Church. He

supported ROCOR’s independent stance, but opposed any condemnation of

the MP as graceless.

This position eminently suited those hierarchs of ROCOR, such as Anthony

of Geneva, whose attitude to events in Russia was dictated as much by

political as by spiritual or ecclesiological considerations (many West

European members of ROCOR, such as the future Archbishop Mark of Berlin,

belonged to the NTS, a secret anti-communist political party which was

infiltrated by both the KGB and the CIA). They were sincere anti-communists

and despised the kowtowing of the MP hierarchs to communism, but would

not have dreamed of denying that the MP was a true Church. In other words,

their opposition to the MP was political and patriotic rather than strictly

ecclesiastical and dogmatic.

Taking the opportunity presented by Solzhenitsyn’s speech, Archbishop

Anthony of Geneva read a report calling on ROCOR to support the dissidents,

in spite of the fact that they were ecumenists and in the MP. He was

countered by Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles, who, while respecting the

courage of the dissidents, objected to a recognition of them that would

devalue the witness of the true catacomb confessors by giving the impression

that it is possible to be a true confessor from within a heretical church

organization.

Also, Metropolitan Philaret moved for an official statement that the MP

was graceless. According to the witness of a seminarian present at the

Council, the majority of bishops and delegates would have supported such a

motion. However, at the last minute the metropolitan was persuaded not to

proceed with the motion on the grounds that it would have caused a schism.

The following is an extract from Protocol № 3 of the ROCOR Council,

dated October 8/21, 1974: “Bishop Gregory says that to the question of the

existence (of grace) it is not always possible to give a final reply immediately.

The loss of grace is the consequence of spiritual death, which sometimes does

not come immediately. Thus plants sometimes die gradually. In relation to the

loss of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate, it would be interesting to make the

comparison with the position of the iconoclasts, although the sin of the

Patriarchate is deeper. The President [Metropolitan Philaret] says that we

cannot now issue a resolution on grace in the Moscow Patriarchate, but we

can be certain that grace lives only in the true Church, but the Moscow

hierarchs have gone directly against Christ and His work. How can there be

grace among them? The metropolitan personally considers that the Moscow

Patriarchate is graceless.”

Voices were heard at the 1974 Council arguing for union not only between

the ROCOR and MP dissidents, but also between ROCOR and the Paris and

American Metropolia (Orthodox Church of America) jurisdictions. Love, they

said, should unite us, and we should not emphasize our differences. But

Metropolitan Philaret pointed out that love which does not wish to disturb

our neighbour by pointing out his errors is not love but hatred! He continued

to regard the Paris and American jurisdictions as schismatic, and did not

allow intercommunion with them. This was in accordance with his

The divisions that were beginning to emerge between Metropolitan

Philaret and the majority of other hierarchs were expressed by him in a letter

to one of his few allies, Protopresbyter George Grabbe, the Secretary of the

Synod. Describing a meeting with the hierarchs, he wrote: “I saw how truly

alone I am among our hierarchs with my views on matters of principle

(although on a personal level I am on good terms with everyone). And I am in

earnest when I say that I am considering retiring. Of course, I won’t leave all

of a sudden, unexpectedly. But at the next Council I intend to point out that

too many things that are taking place in our church life do not sit well with

me. And if the majority of the episcopacy agree with me then I will not raise

the matter of retiring. But if I see that I am alone or see myself in the minority

then I will announce that I am retiring. For I cannot head, nor, therefore bear

the responsibility for that with which I am not in agreement in principle. In

particular, I do not agree with our practice of halfway relations with the

American and Parisian schismatics. The Holy Fathers insistently state that

long and obdurately continuing schism is close to being heresy, and that it is

necessary to relate to stubborn schismatics as to heretics, not allowing any

communion with them whatsoever (how Vladyka Anthony’s hair would

stand on end at such a pronouncement! But I remain unyielding)… There are

very many other matters, too, in particular about Solzhenitsyn, concerning

whom I continue to remain more than just cautious…”

Another important dissident was the Moscow priest Fr. Demetrius Dudko,

who conducted open meetings in his church that attracted many and

influenced many more. Unlike Solzhenitsyn, he knew of the Catacomb

Church, and wrote of it in relatively flattering terms. However, Fr. Demetrius

was infected with ecumenist and liberal ideas, which, of course, he

communicated to his followers. The right attitude to him would have been to

applaud his courage and the correct opinions he expressed, while gently

seeking to correct his liberalism and ecumenism. In no way was it right to

treat him as if he were a true priest in the True Church, and an example to be

followed that was no less praiseworthy than those of the true confessors in

the catacombs. But that is precisely what many in ROCOR, led by Archbishop

Anthony of Geneva, now began to do.

In 1979, in response to a series of protests by Fr. Demetrius against what he

saw as excessive strictness on the part of ROCOR towards the MP,

Archbishop Anthony, breaking the rule imposed by Metropolitan Anastasy

and reasserted by Metropolitan Philaret that ROCOR members should have

no contact, “even of an everyday nature”, with Soviet church clergy, wrote to

Dudko: “I hasten to console you that the part of the Russian Church which

lives in freedom beyond the bounds of the homeland, has never officially

considered the Moscow Patriarchate, which is recognised in the USSR, as

graceless…. We have never dared to deny the grace-filled nature of the

official church, for we believe that the sacraments carried out by her clergy

are sacraments. Therefore our bishops received your clergy into the Church

Abroad in their existing rank… On the other hand, the representatives of the

Catacomb Church in Russia accuse us of not wanting to recognise the

Moscow Patriarchate as graceless.”

However, in 1980, Fr. Demetrius was arrested, which was closely followed

by the arrest of his disciples Victor Kapitanchuk and Lev Regelson. Then

Dudko issued a recantation on Soviet television in which he confessed that his

“so-called struggle with godlessness” was in fact “a struggle with Soviet

power”. Regelson confessed to having “criminal ties” with foreign

correspondents and of mixing religious activity with politics, while

Kapitanchuk also confessed to links with Western correspondents, saying that

he had “inflicted damage on the Soviet state for which I am very sorry”. Both

men implicated others in their “crimes”.

Metropolitan Philaret had been proved right – although many continued to

justify Dudko and denounced the zealots for “judging” him. But it was not a

question of “judging”, and nobody rejoiced in the fall of the dissident. It was a

question of the correct discerning of the boundaries of the Church and the

correct attitude to those struggling outside it.

The metropolitan wrote that the tragedy had overtaken Dudko because his

activity had taken place from within the Moscow Patriarchate – that is,

“outside the True Church”. And he continued: “What is the ‘Soviet church’?

Fr. Archimandrite Constantine has said often and insistently that the most

terrible thing that the God-fighting authorities have done to Russia is the

appearance of the ‘Soviet church’, which the Bolsheviks offered up to the

people as the True Church, having driven the real Orthodox Church into the

catacombs or the concentration camps. This false church has been twice

anathematised. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Church

Council anathematised the communists and all their co-workers. This terrible

anathema has not been lifted to this day and preserves its power, since it can

be lifted only by an All-Russian Church Council, as being the canonically

higher Church authority. And a terrible thing happened in 1927, when the

leader of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his shameful apostate

declaration submitted the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and declared that

he was cooperating with them. In the most exact sense the expression of the

prayer before confession was fulfilled: ‘fallen under his own anathema’! For in

1918 the Church anathematised all the co-workers of communism, and in 1927

she herself entered into the company of these co-workers and began to praise

the red God-fighting authorities – to praise the red beast of which the

Apocalypse speaks. And this is not all. When Metropolitan Sergius published

his criminal declaration, the faithful children of the Church immediately

separated from the Soviet church, and the Catacomb Church was created.

And she in her turn anathematised the official church for her betrayal of

Christ… We receive clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace,

but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church

of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace – that we, of course,

cannot do. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church

has deprived itself of grace.”

Another important cause of conflict between Metropolitan Philaret and

Archbishop Anthony of Geneva was the issue of relations with the Serbian

Church. The Serbs had joined the WCC in 1965 and were as fully under the

control of the communists as the MP. In spite of this, Archbishop Anthony

continued to serve with the Serbs in his West European diocese, citing the

pre-war hospitality of the Serbs to ROCOR in his justification. He also

continued to serve with the new calendarists, which led to several parishes

leaving his diocese, and to the Matthewite Greek Old Calendarists breaking

communion with ROCOR in 1976.

The ROCOR Bishops had actually decided to refrain from communion

with Serbs as long ago as May 19 / June 1, 1967 in a conciliar resolution

marked “Top Secret” “In addition to the resolution of the present Council of

Bishops on relations with the Serbian Orthodox church, the suggestion of his

Eminence the First Hierarch and President of the Council of Bishops

Metropolitan Philaret has been accepted and confirmed, that all the Reverend

Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad should refrain from

concelebration with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.”

In connection with the Serbian issue Metropolitan Philaret wrote to

Archbishop Anthony: “I consider it my duty to point out to you, Vladyka,

that your assertion that we must thank the Serbian Church for her treatment

of us, I fully accept, but only as regards her past – the glorious past of the

Serbian Church. Yes, of course, we must holy the names of their Holinesses

Patriarchs Demetrius and Barnabas in grateful memory for their precious

support of the Church Abroad at that time when she had no place to lay her

head.

“There is no denying that a certain honour is due the Serbian Church for

her refusing to condemn our Church Abroad at the parasynagogue in

Moscow in 1971, and also on later occasions when Moscow again raised the

matter. But then, on the other hand, she did participate in the aforementioned

parasynagogue, when it elected Pimen, and the Serbian hierarchs did not

protest against this absolutely anti-canonical election, when he who had

already been chosen and appointed by the God-hating regime was elected.

Our Council of 1971 did not, and could not, recognize Pimen, whereas the

Serbian Patriarchate recognized and does recognize him, addressing him as

Patriarch, and is in full communion with him. And thus she opposes us

directly, for we attempt at all times to explain to the “Free World” that the

Soviet Patriarchate is not the genuine representative and head of the muchsuffering

Russian Church. But the Serbian Church recognizes her as such, and

by so doing commits a grave sin against the Russian Church and the Russian

Orthodox people.

“How can there be any talk here of a special gratitude to her? Oh, if the

Serbian Church would, while recognizing our righteousness, likewise directly

and openly, boldly recognize the unrighteousness of the Soviets! Well – then

there would truly be something for us to thank her for! But now, as it is, while

extending one hand to us, she extends her other hand to our opponents and

the enemies of God and the Church. If it pleases you, having shut your eyes to

this sad reality, to thank the Serbs for such ‘exploits’ of theirs, then that is

your affair, but I am not a participant in this expression of gratitude.

“How dangerous are compromises in matters of principle! They render

people powerless in defence of the Truth. Why is it that the Serbian

Patriarchate cannot resolve to sever communion with the Soviet hierarchy?

Because she herself is travelling along the same dark and dangerous path of

compromise with the God-hating communists. True, she has not progressed

along that path to the extent that the Soviet hierarchy has, and she attempts to

preach and defend the faith, but if the shades and nuances here are quite

different, yet, in principle, the matter stands on one and the same level”.

Metropolitan Philaret was the humblest and meekest of men. However,

when it came to matters of the faith, he showed no partiality to anyone. Thus

in 1970 Archbishop Averky of Syracuse and Jordanville, who was a zealot for

the faith and close to the views of the metropolitan, permitted some

Monophysite Copts to celebrate a service in Jordanville. Metropolitan

Philaret, considering that the church in Jordanville had been defiled by the

ministrations of heretics, ordered that it be re-consecrated. Then, in a letter to

Archbishop Averky, he pointed out all the anticanonicity of this act,

emphasising that it could be justified by no economy and expressing the fear

that the faithful children of ROCOR would turn away from her if similar

Metropolitan Philaret had to suffer many slanders and attacks, even

physical ones. Once a certain archimandrite in his presence declared to the

other hierarchs that it was necessary quickly to remove “such an unfitting

Metropolitan”…

Again, in 1977, to a layman who was protesting against the ecumenist

activities of Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, he said that while he agreed

with his protest, he could do nothing to help him because he had a gun at his

head – and at this point he formed the fingers of his right hand in the form of

a revolver and pointed it at his temple.

On another occasion, the holy hierarch came to England and was asked by

the ruling hierarch, Archbishop Nikodim of Richmond and Great Britain, why

he had criticised the baptism of a group of laypeople in his diocese. The

metropolitan said he had no objection and asked to see his letter. On being

shown it, he said that he had not written it – his signature had been forged…

According to Fr. Alexis Makrikov, several attempts were made on his life.

One took place when he was returning by ship from the Lesna convent in

France to the USA. Suddenly the fire in the ship’s furnace became so powerful

that the smoke-stack became white-hot. The captain of the ship, seeing no

possibility of quenching the force of the fire, which threaten to melt down the

smoke-stack and engulf the whole ship, turned for help to Metropolitan

Philaret and asked him to pray, because in his opinion only God could save

the ship and its passengers. The saint listened to the captain and immediately

began to pray to God. Between 10 and 20 minutes passed, and the smokestack

began to cool and turn red. And within an hour it had become black

again. The ship was saved by the grace of God! The captain again came to the

metropolitan, kissed his hand and thanked him for his prayers…

In spite of the opposition of individual bishops and clergy, as well as the

enemies from outside the Church, Metropolitan Philaret was loved by the

broad masses of the church people. As during his life in Harbin, the holy

hierarch refused nobody help on his becoming First-Hierarch. He took special

care over the spiritual enlightenment of the young, whom he very much

loved and by whom he was always surrounded. He taught people true humility and repentance: “Sometimes people say about themselves: “Oh, I’m very religious, I’m a deep believer,” – and they say this sincerely, thinking that can in actual fact say this about themselves with good reason… From the life of the Church we see that those who really

had true faith always thought about themselves and their faith in a very

humble way, and always considered and were conscious of themselves as

being of little faith… He who really believes does not trust his faith and sees

himself as being of little faith. He who in essence does not have the true faith

thinks that he believes deeply…

“We see a similar ‘paradox’ in the moral, ethical and spiritual evaluation of

a person;… righteous men see themselves as sinners, while sinners see

themselves as righteous.

“… In the soul of a sinner unenlightened by the Grace of God, who does

not think about the spiritual life, who does not think about correction, who

does not think about how he will answer for himself before God, everything

has merged together, and he himself can make out nothing in it; only the allseeing

God sees the pitiful condition of the soul of this man. But he himself

does not feel it and does not notice it, and thinks that he is not that bad, and

that the passages in the Gospel that talk about great sinners have no

relationship at all to him. Perhaps he does not think of himself as holy, but he

supposes that he is not that bad…

“Those who were pleasing to God thought of themselves in a completely

different way and saw themselves and their spiritual nature in a completely

different light. One ascetic wept all the time; his disciple asked him: ‘Father,

what are you weeping about?’ ‘About my sins, my son,’ he replied. ‘But what

sins can you have? And why do you weep over them so much?’ ‘My son,’

replied the ascetic, ‘if I could see my sins as they should be seen, in all their

ugliness, I would ask you to weep for my sins together with me.’ That is how

these extraordinary people spoke about themselves. But we, being ordinary

people, do not see our sinfulness and do not feel its weight. Hence it turns out

as I have just said: a person comes to confession and does not know what to

say. One woman arriving for confession just said: ‘Batyushka, I’ve forgotten

everything.’ What do you think: if a man has a painful hand or leg or some

inner organ, and goes to the doctor, will he forget that he has a pain? So is it

with the soul: if it really burns with a feeling of repentance, it will not forget

its sins. Of course, not one person can remember all his sins – all to the last

one, without exception. But true repentance unfailing demands that a man

should be conscious of his sinfulness and feel sincere compunction over it.

“We pray in the Great Fast that the Lord grant us to behold our sins – our

sins, and not other people’s. But it is necessary to pray about this not only in

the Fast, but at all times – to pray that the Lord may teach us to see ourselves

as we should and not think about our supposed ‘righteousness’. But we must

remember that only the mercy of God can open a man’s eyes to his true

spiritual condition and in this way place him on the path of true repentance.”

During the period of service of Metropolitan Philaret as first-hierarch of the

Russian Church Abroad many new saints of God were glorified by the

Church Abroad: Righteous John of Kronstadt (in 1964), St. Herman of Alaska

(in 1971), Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg (in 1978), the Synaxis of the New

Martyrs and Confessors of Russia (1981) and St. Paisius Velichkovsky (1982).

Of these canonizations the most significant was that of the Holy New Martyrs

and Confessors of Russia. Unlike the seemingly similar act of the MP in 2000,

this act did not confuse true martyrs with false, true servants of Christ with

sergianists and traitors. Its influence within Russia was great.

Metropolitan Philaret wrote about this unique event: "Although in the

history of the Church of Christ we see examples of martyrdom in all periods

of her existence, still, before the Russian Revolution the exploit of martyrdom

was something primarily of the first centuries of Christianity., when

paganism strove by iron and blood to annihilate the Holy Church.

"We see something else today. With the appearance and consolidation of

God-fighting communism in Russia, there began a persecution of the faith

unheard of in its cruelty and broad scale. As one Church writer has defined it,

Orthodox Russia has been on Golgotha, and the Russian Church on the Cross

....The Russian Church and people have given an uncounted multitude of

cases of the martyric endurance of persecutions and death for faith in

Christ...not merely hundreds or thousands, but millions of sufferers for faith--

an unheard of and shocking phenomenon!

"But at the same time the Russian land is being purified of this defilement

by the sacred blood of the New Martyrs who have suffered for faith and

righteousness. The Russian land has been abundantly watered by this blood--

watered, sanctified, and cleansed from the senselessness of the atheists and

God-fighters! ....

"The day draws near of the canonization-glorification of the uncounted

choir of martyrs and confessors of the faith which the Russian Church and

people have manifested to the world. This will be a day of the greatest

solemnity for the Orthodox faith--not only in Russia and in the Russian

diaspora, but in the whole World, wherever there are · faithful children of the

Orthodox Church....

"Great and numerous is the choir of the Russian New Martyrs. It is headed

first of all by the sacred names of His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon, the

murdered Metropolitans Vladimir and Benjamin; Metropolitan Vladimir

occupies a special place of honour in it as the first martyr who placed the

beginning of this glorious choir. At the same time, an entirely special place in

the choir of the New Martyrs is taken by the Royal Family, headed by the

Tsar-martyr, Emperor Nicolas Alexandrovich, who once said: ‘If for the

salvation of Russia a sacrifice is needed, I will be this sacrifice…’

“Members of the Russian Church Outside of Russia! We are preparing for a

great solemnity – a solemnity not only for the Russian Orthodox Church, but

also for the entire Ecumenical Church, because the whole Orthodox Church in

all its parts is one and lives a single spiritual life. Let this solemnity of the

Orthodox faith and the beauty of the exploit of martyrdom be not only a

general Church solemnity, but also a personal solemnity for each of us! We

call all members of the Church Outside of Russia to prepare for it with

increased prayer, confession, and communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ,

so that our whole Church with one mouth and one heart might glorify Him

from Whom comes every good gift and every perfect gift - God Who is

wondrous in His saints!"

In 1982 a great miracle of the mercy of God was revealed – the wonderworking

icon of the Iveron-Montreal icon of the Mother of God, which for

Time passed, and it became clearer and clearer that it was impossible for

the Orthodox to have any kind of communion with the “churches” of World

Orthodoxy, let alone be in them. In 1980 the ecumenical press-service (ENI)