True Orthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy
Fr. Seraphim Rose
As the Fathers say, the extremes from both sides are equally harmful ... (We must) go on the royal path, avoiding the extremes on both sides. St. John Cassian, Conference II
ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS live today in one of the
great critical times in the history of Christ's Church. The enemy
of man's salvation, the devil, attacks on all fronts and strives
by all means not merely to divert believers from the path of
salvation shown by the Church, but even to conquer the Church of
Christ itself, despite the Saviour's promise (Matt. 16:18), and
to convert the very Body of Christ into an "ecumenical"
organization preparing for the coming of his own chosen one,
Antichrist, the great world-ruler of the last days.
Of course, we know that this attempt of Satan
will fail; the Church will be the Bride of Christ even to the end
of the world and will meet Christ the Bridegroom at His Second
Coming pure and undefiled by adulterous union with the apostasy
of this age. But the great question of our times for all Orthodox
Christians to face is a momentous one: the Church will remain,
but how many of us will still be in it, having withstood the
devil's mighty attempts to draw us away from it?
Our times are much like those of St. Mark of
Ephesus in the 15th century, when it seemed that the Church was
about to be dissolved into the impious Union with the Latins.
Nay, our times are even worse and more dangerous than those
times; for then the Union was an act imposed by force from
without, while now the Orthodox people have been long prepared
for the approaching "ecumenical" merger of all churches
and religions by decades of laxness, indifference, worldliness,
and indulgence in the ruinous falsehood that "nothing really
separates us" from all others who call themselves
Christians. The Orthodox Church survived the false Union of
Florence, and even knew a time of outward prosperity and inward
spiritual flourishing after that; but after the new false Union,
now being pursued with ever-increasing momentum, will Orthodoxy
exist at all save in the catacombs and the desert?
During the past ten years and more, under the
disastrous "ecumenical" course pursued by Patriarch
Athenagoras and his successor, the Orthodox Churches have already
come perilously close to total shipwreck. The newest
"ecumenical" statement of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, "The
Thyateira Confession" (see The
Orthodox Word, Jan.-Feb., 1976), is already sufficient
evidence of how far the Orthodox conscience has been lost by the
Local Church that once was first among the Orthodox Churches in
the confession of Christ's truth; this dismal document only shows
how close the hierarchs of Constantinople have now come to being
absorbed into the heterodox "Christianity" of the West,
even before the formal Union which is still being prepared.
THE ROOTS of today’s ecumenism in the
Orthodox Churches go back to the renovationism and modernism of
certain hierarchs in the 1920's. In the Russian Church, these
currents produced, first, the "Living Church" movement
which, with the help of the Communist regime, tried to overthrow
Patriarch Tikhon and "reform" the Church in a radically
Protestant manner, and then—as a more
"conservative" successor to the "Living
Church"—the Sergianist church organization (the Moscow
Patriarchate), which emphasized at first the political side of
reconciliation with Communist ideology and aims (in accordance
with the infamous "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius
in 1927), and only in recent decades has ventured once again into
the realm of ecclesiastical renovationism with its active
participation in the ecumenical movement. In the Greek Church the
situation has been similar: the renovationist "Pan-Orthodox
Council" of 1923, with its Protestant reforms inspired by
Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis of sorry memory, proved to be too
radical for the Orthodox world to accept, and the renovationists
had to be satisfied with imposing a calendar reform on several of
the non-Slavic Churches.
Large movements of protest opposed the
reformers in both the Russian and Greek Churches, producing the
deep divisions which exist until now in the Orthodox world. In
the Russian Church, Sergianism was decisively rejected by very
many of the bishops and faithful, led by Metropolitan Joseph of
Petrograd; this "Josephite"
movement later became organized to some extent and became known
as the "True Orthodox Church." The history of this
illegal "Catacomb" Church of Russia is, to this day,
veiled in secrecy, but in the past few years a number of
startling evidences of its present-day activities have come to
light, leading to stern repressive measures on the part of the
Soviet government. The name of its present chief hierarch
(Metropolitan Theodosius) has become known, as has that of one of
its ten or more bishops (Bishop Seraphim). In the Diaspora, the
Russian Church Outside of Russia committed itself from the very
beginning of Sergianism in 1927 to a firm anti-Sergianist
position, and on numerous occasions it has expressed its
solidarity with the True Orthodox Church in Russia, while
refusing all communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Its
uncompromisingness and staunch traditionalism in this and other
matters were not to the taste of several of the Russian hierarchs
of Western Europe and America, who were more receptive to the
"reform" currents in 20th-century Orthodoxy, and they
separated themselves at various times from the Russian Church
Outside of Russia, thus creating the present
"jurisdictional" differences of the Russian Diaspora.
In Greece the movement of protest, by a similar
Orthodox instinct, likewise took the name of "True Orthodox
Christians." From the beginning in 1924 (when the calendar
reform was introduced), this movement has been especially strong
among the simple monks, priests and laymen of Greece; the first
bishop to leave the State Church of Greece and join the movement
was Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina, and today it continues
its fully independent life and organization, comprising about
one-fourth of all the Orthodox Christians of Greece, and perhaps
one-half or more of all the monks and nuns. Although popularly
known as the"old calendarists," the True Orthodox
Christians of Greece stand for a staunch traditionalism in
Orthodox life and thought in general, viewing the calendar
question merely as a first stage and a touchstone of modernism
and reformism.
As the "ecumenical" cancer eats more
and more away at the remaining sound organs of the Orthodox
Churches today, an increasing sympathy is being shown by the most
sensitive members of the "official" Orthodox
jurisdictions for the cause and the representatives of the
anti-ecumenist, anti-reformist Churches of Russia, Greece, and
the Diaspora. Some, seeing the "official" jurisdictions
as now irrevocably set on a course of anti-orthodoxy, are
abandoning them as sinking ships and joining the ranks of the
True Orthodox Christians; others, still hoping for the
restoration of an Orthodox course in world Orthodoxy, think it
enough for now to express sympathy for the True Orthodox
Christians or to protest boldly against the "reformist"
mentality in the official jurisdictions. The ten years of
anti-ecumenist epistles
of Metropolitan Philaret, Chief
Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, have struck a
responsive chord within a number of the Orthodox Churches, even
if the "official" response to them has been largely
silence or hostility.
Today, more than at any other time in the
50-year struggle to preserve the Orthodox tradition in an age of
apostasy, the voice of true and uncompromising Orthodoxy could
be heard throughout the world and have a profound effect on
the future course of the Orthodox Churches. Probably, indeed, it
is already too late to prevent the renovationist "Eighth
Ecumenical Council" and the "ecumenical" Union
which lies beyond it; but perhaps one or more of the Local
Churches may yet be persuaded to step back from this ruinous path
which will lead to the final liquidation (as Orthodox) of those
jurisdictions that follow it to the end; and in any case,
individuals and whole communities can certainly be saved from
this path, not to mention those of the heterodox who may still
find their way into the saving enclosure of the true Church of
Christ.
IT IS OF CRITICAL importance, therefore, that
this voice be actually one of true, that is, patristic Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, it sometimes happens, especially in the heat of
controversy, that basically sound Orthodox positions are
exaggerated on one side, and misunderstood on the other, and thus
an entirely misleading impression is created in some minds that
the cause of true Orthodoxy today is a kind of
"extremism," a sort of "right-wing reaction"
to the prevailing "left-wing" course now being followed
by the leaders of the "official" Orthodox Churches.
Such a political view of the struggle for true Orthodoxy today is
entirely false. This struggle, on the contrary, has taken the
form, among its best representatives today—whether in
Russia, Greece, or the Diaspora—of a return to the patristic
path of moderation, a mean between extremes; this
is what the Holy Fathers call the ROYAL PATH.
The teaching of this "royal path" is
set forth, for example, in the tenth of St. Abba Dorotheus' Spiritual
lnstructions, where he quotes especially the Book of
Deuteronomy: Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to
the left, but go by the royal path (Deut. 5:32, 17:11), and
St. Basil the Great: "Upright of heart is he whose thought
does not turn away either to excess or to lack, but is directed
only to the mean of virtue." But perhaps this teaching is
most clearly expressed by the great Orthodox Father of the 5th
century, St. John Cassian, who was faced with a task not unlike
our own Orthodox task today: to present the pure teaching of the
Eastern Fathers to Western peoples who were spiritually immature
and did not yet understand the depth and subtlety of the Eastern
spiritual doctrine and were therefore inclined to go to extremes,
either of laxness or over-strictness, in applying it to life. St.
Cassian sets forth the Orthodox doctrine of the royal path in
his Conference on "sober-mindedness" (or
"discretion")—the Conference praised by St. John
of the Ladder (Step 4:105) for its "beautiful and sublime
philosophy":
"With all our strength and with all our
effort we must strive by humility to acquire for ourselves the
good gift of sober-mindedness, which can preserve us unharmed by
excess from both sides. For, as the Fathers say, the extremes
from both sides are equally harmful—both excess of fasting
and filling the belly, excess of vigil and excessive sleep, and
other excesses." Sobermindedness "teaches a man to go
on the royal path, avoiding the extremes on both sides: on the
right side it does not allow him to be deceived by excessive
abstinence, on the left side to be drawn into carelessness and
relaxation." And the temptation on the "right
side" is even more dangerous than that on the
"left": "Excessive abstinence is more harmful than
satiating oneself; because, with the cooperation of repentance,
one may go over from the latter to a correct understanding, but
from the former one cannot" (i.e., because pride over one's
"virtue" stands in the way of the repentant humility
that could save one). (Conferences, II, chs. 16, 2, 17.)
Applying this teaching to our own situation, we
may say that the "royal path" of true Orthodoxy today
is a mean that lies between the extremes of ecumenism and
reformism on the one side, and a "zeal not according to
knowledge" (Rom. 10:2) on the other. True Orthodoxy does not
go "in step with the times" on the one hand, nor does
it make "strictness" or "correctness" or
"canonicity" (good in themselves) an excuse for
pharisaic self-satisfaction, exclusivism, and distrust, on the
other. This true Orthodox moderation is not to be confused with
mere luke-warmness or indifference, or with any kind of
compromise between political extremes. The spirit of
"reform" is so much in the air today that anyone whose
views are molded by the "spirit of the times" will
regard true Orthodox moderation as dose to
"fanaticism," but anyone who looks at the question more
deeply and applies the patristic standard will find the royal
path to be far from any kind of extremism. Perhaps no Orthodox
teacher in our own days provides such an example of sound and
fervent Orthodox moderation as the late Archbishop Averky of
Jordanville; his numerous articles and sermons breathe the
refreshing spirit of true Orthodox zealotry, without any
deviation either to the "right" or to the
"left," and with emphasis constantly on the spiritual
side of true Orthodoxy. (See especially his article, "Holy Zeal," in The Orthodox Word, May-June, 1975.)
THE RUSSIAN CHURCH Outside of Russia has been
placed, by God's Providence, in a very favorable position for
preserving the "royal path" amidst the confusion of so
much of 20th-century Orthodoxy. Living in exile and poverty in a
world that has not understood the suffering of her people, she
has focused her attention on preserving unchanged the faith which
unites her people, and so quite naturally she finds herself a
stranger to the whole ecumenical mentality, which is based on
religious indifference and self-satisfaction, material affluence,
and soulless internationalism. On the other hand, she has been
preserved from falling into extremism on the "right
side" (such as might be a declaration that the Mysteries of
the Moscow Patriarchate are without grace) by her vivid awareness
that the Sergianist church in Russia is not free; one can
of course have no communion with such a body, dominated by
atheists, but precise definitions of its status are best left to
a free Russian church council in the future. If there seems to be
a "logical contradiction" here ("if you don't deny
her Mysteries, why don't you have communion with her?"), it
is a problem only for rationalists; those who approach church
questions with the heart as well as the head have no trouble
accepting this position, which is the testament bequeathed to he
Russian Church of the Diaspora by her wise Chief Hierarch,
Metropolitan Anastassy (+1965).
Living in freedom, the Russian Church Outside
of Russia has considered as one of her important obligations to
express her solidarity and full communion with the underground
True Orthodox Church of Russia, whose existence is totally
ignored and even denied by "official" Orthodoxy. In
God's time, when the terrible trial of the Russian Church and
people will have passed, the other Orthodox Churches may
understand the Russian Church situation better; until then, it is
perhaps all one can hope for that the free Orthodox Churches have
never questioned the right of the Russian Church Outside of
Russia to exist or denied the grace of her Mysteries, almost all
of them have long remained in communion with her (until her
non-participation in the ecumenical movement isolated her and
made her a reproach to the other Churches, especially in the last
decade), and up to this day they have (at least passively)
resisted the politically-inspired attempts of the Moscow
Patriarchate to have her declared "schismatic" and
"uncanonical."
In recent years, the Russian Church Outside of Russia has also
given support and recognition to the True Orthodox Christians of Greece, whose
situation also has long been exceedingly difficult and misunderstood. In Greece
the first blow against the Church (the calendar reform) was not as deadly as
the "Declaration" of Metropolitan Sergius in Russia, and for this
reason it has taken longer for the theological consciousness of the Orthodox
Greek people to see its full anti-orthodox significance. Further, few bishops
in Greece have been bold enough to join the movement (whereas, by contrast,
the number of non-Sergianist bishops in the beginning was larger than the whole
episcopate of the Greek Church). And only in recent years has the cause of the
old calendarists become even a little "intellectually respectable,"
as more and more university graduates have joined it. Over the years it has
suffered persecutions, sometimes quite fierce, from the State and the official
Church, and to this day it remains disdained by the "sophisticated"
and totally without recognition from the "official" Orthodox world.
Unfortunately, internal disagreements and divisions have continued to weaken
the cause of the old calendarists, and they lack a single unanimous voice to
express their stand for patristic Orthodoxy. Still, the basic Orthodoxy of their
position cannot be denied, and one can only welcome such sound presentations
of it as may be seen in the article that follows [in the issue of TOW—Webmaster].
The increasing realization in recent years of
the basic oneness of the cause of True Orthodoxy throughout the
world, whether in the Catacomb Church of Russia, the old
calendarists of Greece, or the Russian Church Outside of Russia,
has led some to think in terms of a "united front" of
confessing Churches to oppose the ecumenical movement which has
taken possession of "official" Orthodoxy. However,
under present conditions this will hardly come to pass; and in
any case, this is a "political" view of the situation
which sees the significance of the mission of true Orthodoxy in
too external a manner. The full dimensions of the True-Orthodox
protest against "ecumenical Orthodoxy", against the
neutralized, lukewarm Orthodoxy of the apostasy, have yet to be
revealed, above all in Russia. But it cannot be that the witness
of so many martyrs and confessors and champions of True Orthodoxy
in the 20th century will have been in vain. May God preserve His
zealots in the royal path of true Orthodoxy, faithful to Him and
to His Holy Church until the end of the age!
From The Orthodox Word, Sept.-Oct., 1976 (70), 143-149.
