The Exploits of our(?) Archbishop Mark
In the February 2001 issue of "Vestnik," the journal of the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia ("ROCOR"), there was an innocent-looking article titled "A Visit to Serbia," describing a four-day visit of the Most Reverend Mark, Archbishop of Germany and Berlin from Feb. 4/17 through Feb. 8/21, 2001, http://www.rocor.de/Vestnik/20012/html/6.htm. It detailed his visits to a monastery in Krushedol; a monastery in Kovil'e; Novyi Sad; Belgrad; Khopovo and the birthplace of ROCOR in Sremski Karlovits (from the name of this town the Moscow Patriarchy, "MP," coined a derogatory nickname for the ROCOR as the "Karlovats schism" and for ROCOR faithful "karlovaits"). In all these places, Archbishop Mark conducted joint services with Serbian clergy. In Novy Sad, for instance, the article says that "At the start of the liturgy, Archbishop Mark was asked to act as the senior cleric during the entire service and, throughout his visit, he was accorded every honor and attention." In Novy Sad, Archbishop Mark "exchanged experiences" with Right Reverend Irinei, bishop of Novyi Sad and Bach. In particular, "Bishop Irinei talked about discussions he had with Roman Catholics and the great difficulties involved." One is tempted to ask -- perhaps, then, these discussions are not worthwhile? However, Archbishop Mark, understandably, would not pose such a question. In reply to Archbishop Mark's question about possible turmoil that could arise among the flock from these discussions, bishop Irinei replied that both the flock and the clergy MUST HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEIR HIERARCHY (Trans. emphasis, pnb). Such a reassurance, of course, so much reinforced Archbishop Mark's belief that sobornost' means blind obedience to hierarchs, that soon thereafter he applied it by banning Western European clerics. And so, in pleasant chats and joint services with ecumenists, Archbishop Mark spent his four-day visit. Seemingly, there is much cause for joy in all of this, were it not for some nagging doubts triggered by this article.
To begin with, let us note that the Serbian Orthodox Church ("SOC") is a member of the World Council of Churches ("WCC"), http://www.wcc-coe.org/. Our church placed the ecumenical movement represented by this organization under ANATHEMA in 1983. In doing so, it banned joint services. It would be interesting to know whether Archbishop Mark anathematized the SOC at the service on the Orthodoxy Sunday, March 4, 2001? If the answer were "yes," then it would mean that he pronounced the anathema upon himself; if it's "no," then it would mean that he once again (with impunity) broke ROCOR decrees.
However, Archbishop Mark is not one to heed the ROCOR's bidding. During this visit, he managed to attend a meeting of the SOC Synod (perhaps this was the main purpose of the visit?). Here is how the article describes it: "On Monday morning, Archbishop Mark and bishop Irenei went to Belgrad to attend the Synod meeting. First, bishop Irinei went in to take care of his business. After this, Archbishop Mark was called in. The Patriarch Paul himself chaired the meeting. Present were metropolitan Ioann of Zagreb, and bishops Savva of Shumad, Basil of Tuzlan, and Justin of Timoch. The patriarch warmly greeted Archbishop Mark and asked him to explain his business. Archbishop Mark told the meeting about the ROCOR Bishop's Council held in October 2000, about the two Committees that were established there, and about the letter sent to the Patriarch. Patriarch Paul replied that the SOC always felt great love and respect toward Russian hierarchs, clergy, and the flock, that found new home in Serbia after the revolution (of 1917, pnb), and gladly will do all in his powers to aid the unification of the Russian Orthodox Church." In other words, while ROCOR faithful are asleep in a lethargic slumber of CONFIDENCE IN THEIR HIERARCHY, the "good shepherd," Archbishop Mark, steadily promotes his OWN agenda to ensure that one day they will wake up in the bosom of "his holiness (a.k.a. "Drozdov"). It would seem that former U.S. President Ronald Reagan was right, when he based his relations with the Soviet Union on the principle of "doveriai, no proveriai," i.e., "trust, but verify" (he even learned to say it in Russian).
Closer to our time, on June 18/31, 1999, metropolitan Vitaly issued a Ukase, specifically forbidding joint services with the Serbian clergy because of the SOC's involvement in the ecumenical movement. As far as we know, this Ukase was never repealed. True, right after receiving the Ukase, Archbishop Mark announced in his letter to Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, http://www.listok.com/sobor72.htm, that he has no intention to obey this Ukase (which, perhaps, should have been used as a cause for banning him?).
So, what is happening? A senior hierarch of the ROCOR violates Sobor decrees with impunity, and then boasts about this to the world via the journal of his diocese. As a Russian proverb says, "a fish starts spoiling from the head down." Throughout 1990s, Archbishop Mark undeviatingly pursues a policy of involving ROCOR with the MP and the ecumenical movement, paying no attention to objections by the metropolitan, please see http://www.russia-talk.com/beam.htm, and here, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-79.htm. As is well known, in his efforts to conduct a "dialog" with the MP leadership, he even managed to gain audience with "patriarch Aleksi II." It is safe to assume that their conversation covered subjects other than the weather.
Let us recall that this very Archbishop Mark, who has no respect for his metropolitan whatsoever, thinks nothing of signing bans on ROCOR clerics. His latest "achievement" in this regard -- the "Munich tribunal sentencing" on April 19/May 2, 2001, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-85.htm. This is a particularly ignominious document, since it confirms not only a ban of a group of Western European ROCOR clerics, but it also asks their flock not to attend their services since, according to this document, they have no grace! Let us remind the reader that their only "guilt" was that they refused to pray for bishop Ambroise during services after their two-year(!) canonically-correct protests against his appointment as their ruling bishop were completely ignored by the Synod of bishops, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-81.htm.
Reading this article brings to mind some other reflections. For instance, what the signers of the "Statement of the clergy conference of the Western-American ROCOR Diocese" or a similar document signed by the clergy of the East-American Diocese think about this all? True, in their voluminous statement, Western-American clergy managed to avoid any mention of ecumenism (probably because it is a poor taste to speak about a rope in a home of a person executed by hanging). Some comments about this statement may be found here, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-71.htm and here, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-84.htm.
This latest gross violation of ROCOR edicts by Archbishop Mark means, most likely, that "our" hierarchs, having decided to begin the process of rapprochement with the MP, are trying to sweeten the bitter pill of ecumenism to make it easier to swallow by the unsuspecting flock. Let us recall that right after the infamous October 2000 Council of Bishops, bishop Ambroise pronounced that the issues of sergianism and canonization of new martyrs by the MP have been solved and that the only issue that still separates the MP and ROCOR is ecumenism, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-36.htm. However, herein lies a problem. "Patriarch Aleksi II" firmly insists that the MP intends to remain within the ecumenical heresy, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-54.htm. Therefore, as well-known saying goes, "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em." To this end, proponents of the unification with the MP must "dumbdown" the flock into believing that the ecumenism, after all, is not that bad. For instance, Archbishop Mark traveled to Serbia, conducted services with Serbian ecumenists, and came back well and alive, ecumenists are people just like us. In addition, by joining the ecumenical movement, we will enter the bosom of the Universal Orthodoxy, http://www.listok.com/sobor72.htm).
Hieromonk Nektarii of Optina (1928+) used to say: "Seek the inner meaning in all around you. All that happens around us and with us, has a meaning. Nothing ever happens without a cause." From this point of view, ecumenical trips by Archbishop Mark go beyond waving a red rag in front of "right fanatics" among the ROCOR flock. He is relying on a widely accepted notion that if one sinned once, then the "amount of sinfulness" does not increase with the repetition of that sin, in other words that one is permitted to sin in the aftermath of the original sin. This is reflected in a proverb, "in for a penny, in for a pound." This approach, of course, flies against the Orthodox concept of repentance, according to which if one commits a sin, then one must repent, rather than continue one's sinful behavior.
We can also understand why Archbishop Mark agreed to head up the "Committee for the Unity of the Russian Church," established at the October 2000 Sobor, as it was called by bishop Ambroise, http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-36.htm. By becoming the head of this Committee, he will be able to do much in bringing us closer to the MP, as well as getting ROCOR into the ecumenical movement. Being in charge has its privileges.
Finally, let us once more attempt to comprehend the reasons for such behavior of "our" bishops. Some thoughts on this have been presented in the article (in Russian) titled "ROCOR and the New World Order," http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-56.htm. Another reason -- wishful thinking. Here we see the same phenomenon that took place in France in 1945-46, when Russian immigrants, having perceived victories of the Red Army over Germany as victories of RUSSIAN arms over the traditional foe of RUSSIA -- Germany, joined the newly-created "Association of Soviet Patriots" by the thousands. The fact that, while these victories WERE achieved with RUSSIAN HANDS, the fruits of these victories were reaped by the same Cheka men, parading as RUSSIAN patriots, who were shooting them during the 1920s, totally escaped them in their euphoria. Subsequently, they acquired Soviet passports and en mass "returned home," e.g. Soviet Union. Upon arrival, they were directly shipped to the Gulag. A recent movie, "East/West," depicts these events very vividly and realistically. It would be useful to scrutinize this film to all those who dream about "reunification" with "Mother-Church" in any form -- whether through a broad autocephaly (the most likely prospect) or through a direct union. It is reasonable to assume that the MP stands ready to grant "our" bishops an EXTREMELY BROAD autocephaly since this would bring the fulfillment of their 80-year-old wishes -- the destruction of the hateful "karlovaits" who throughout the XXth century served as living witnesses to their apostasy.
The same thing is happening now. True, today "our" bishops and clergy, who, in their naivete will follow them, will not be shipped to a PHYSICAL Gulag. Rather, they will be "merely" sent to a SPIRITUAL Gulag. However, let us wish them neither a "happy trip," nor an "Angel-companion", but let us pray for their souls instead.
Peter N. Budzilovich
May 20, 2001
No comments:
Post a Comment