Friday, January 25, 2013

Victims of the Two Power-Verticles

to our beloved, departed four years now,
brother Eugene L. Magerovsky, (Vechnaya Pamyat!)
who fought all of his life, to free Russia and it's Orthodox
people, from the tyranny of the godless Communists.
He too wanted the real Russian Church to be free of that slavery,
and he spent the last days of his life, though physically declining,
 fighting the betrayal of our ROCOR in 2007, to that same apostate atheist-front,
called  'The Moscow Patriarchia', which false organization to this day, is still!
totally controlled by the Kremlin KGB/FSB gangsters.
He passed to his eternal reward on January 18, 2009, on the eve of Theophany.
May he indeed, REST WITH THE SAINTS! 

Victims of the Two Power-Verticles:

Category: A valuable insight, inside of the MP,
and about the current social pressures, good and bad, inside of Putin's Russia:
Many facts we were already aware of, and some we were not.

Published online portal-Credo.Ru
21-01-2013 19:10

"Gazeta": Victims of the two verticals. Boris Falikov the revival of the Soviet model of church-state relations based on total submission to the State Church

The ROC copies the authoritarian habits of the government, ignoring the requests for ethical values, which is formed by the community.

Earlier this year, in the Russian Orthodox Church, [the 'Moscow Patriarchia'] two events occurred that could easily go unnoticed by the public. Back in Zaostrovye, priest John Privalov was deprived of his parish and transferred to another assignment in the Cathedral of Arkhangelsk. In the suburbs, another cleric Dmitry Sverdlov was generally banned in the priestly service for five years. But what would have seemed to have been a purely religious event in the community, was instead though in fact, commonly known about, quite widely.

At first glance, they have nothing in common. Priest John is in line with the ideas of the famous Moscow priest Georgi Kochetkov and he created a strong parish, where he actively engaged in catechesis (instruction in the faith), developing a new community and the possibility of  using a Russian language liturgy. That is, as befits a true missionary, on the one hand, he opened wide the gates of the church, and on the other - he was seeking to apply in action a more meaningful life for the Church.

In general, he attempted to fight our perennial Russian problem, formulated by Leskov - "Rus was baptized, but not enlightened."

But this is not all. In his rectorship, he was not a stranger to secular education. The priest invited to his parish foreign lecturers in the respectable foreign Slavic -field: George Field, Nikita Struve, as well as domestic celebrities - Olga Sedakova the poetess, and the artist Sergei Jurassic. The dialogue between the Church and culture came to an end however  in an unexpected place - in the Archangel rural outback. It would seem that any possible harm, because of all this, should have been unexpected. But the ruling hierarch Metropolitan Daniel decided otherwise.

Dmitry Sverdlov is also famous [or infamous], for other things. He took an active part in the development of civil society. He observed and reported on the recent presidenital election, and he wrote about it as an interested and a critical journalist, and he was active in humanitarian aid in Crimea. But this did not prevent him from also building a new church and also in creating a strong parish. At one point he asked for helping staff, as psychological fatigue came over him, and he wanted to complete his church education, and finish writing Orthodox books for children. But Metropolitan Juvenal refused him his permission for all these plans, and chose to instead completely prohibit his ministry.

Are there in the ROC so many bright clerics that they can simply be thrown out, to the right and left?

And here it becomes clear, in what specific matters which were going on inside the church, which were  not pleasing to the authorities, with these two very different priests. Both have come from the general masses, they both approach their activities creatively, they led highly moral lives. Both showed the spiritual freedom that Christianity believes is one of it's main values. For this, they paid the price.

The fact is: that the current ROC, however, lives by completely different rules. This clumsy bureaucratic organization in which the title, 'bishop' -is the final law to the sheep. And he - humbly, is expected to be, the final expert in all decisions. Therefore, of all the Christian virtues, in the first place, to this bishop, is put.. obedience [to himself].

And anyone who does not know how to be a cog in the machine, can easily end up with the outcasts and renegades, and if time does not change his mind, he may even be thrown out among the heretics. This order from above, was as if to a soldier, is a direct command, for example, Metropolitan Daniel said: "From the denial of the authority of the vertical hierarchy, there has started all heresies and schisms." The main concern for this bureaucratic structure - is the struggle to maintain the notorious vertical-power structure. (God forbid!, if it ever becomes... weak), while simultaneously trampling on any seeds of freedom. But this is not all of the various trends of an internal church power-verticle, which imposes similar processes that are also occurring in the country, and by so doing, this reality inside the church, significantly enhances it.

The Kremlin with no less zeal, clings to this vertical-power structure, and suppresses any remnants of democratic freedoms. We are rapidly dropping into the recent past, and the old [soviet] model of church-state relations is revived in front of our eyes. What was it about? It was the full submission of of the church to the state. This had an impact on the shape of the ROC. To survive, it is hypocritical to suggest that this was to aid the USSR's struggle for peace, rather than to justify another stupidity, as the Politburo's invasion of Afghanistan, and then for the church to obediently brand as villains, such fighters against totalitarianism, like Solzhenitsyn. Of course, creativity and freedom are not departing totally from Orthodox life, but the church leaders became very fearful, that they may be seen, as disloyal to the Soviet authorities. By such tactics the ROC is now employing and is itself, now copying the authoritarian habits of the current government. All this is not surprising, with the formidable record of fearful historical events. But the story goes on, changing the consciousness of people who can not meekly accept such failures of the past. They did not create that past, themselves. But it is interesting that the ones more active than others in not tolerating this current situation, are those who seemingly are quite far from the church - mainly the city educated youth. They are the ones who are making so much noise and among whom, such concerns are being raised in their social networks, - about the repression of the two priests.

In the church, such criticism is extremely painful and rare, - about which, they in the church say, - the church has the right to influence the public, so as to enlighten us as to how we should vote, because the church, officially, pretends to be politically neutral.. But the point is not whether it is a church or any church, which says anything,  but that the church's criticism should be because of, ethical  reflection. And the reason is simple. Formation of a civil society requires social solidarity, which can not be created outside of ethical principles.

Not surprisingly, criticisms  of the Kremlin are now primarily of a moral nature (as an example: the fight against the "antisirotskogo law"). One of the prime sources  of traditional moral values is religion (which does not cancel out the existence of secular ethics), but the church  instead supports the immoral actions of the authorities, and in response, receives now a volley of criticism. And when the church is persecuting it's own clergy, in which situation, it has a living central aspect of morality to it, this moral issue has an  active central character to it, and in such a situation, the church receives an extra volley of criticism fired at it

Until the church authorities realize that much of the current "anti-clericalism" is based in this ethical basis, this ethical dilemma, no dialogue with society and itself will work.

More. If the ROC does not properly utilize the current situation, and if it does not adapt to the demand for moral values, which is formed in the community, it will only continue to exist to simply please the authorities, and to protect it's own ramshackle vertical-power structure,then   it will lose touch with the rapidly changing world.

"Gazeta", January 21, 2013


No comments:

Post a Comment

I, Joanna Higginbotham, administrator and comment moderator of this blog, do solemnly swear that Anonymous comments will not be published. Include your jurisdiction, rank/status (priest, layman, monk, catechumen, etc.). Use the NAME/URL option to enter a name or pseudonym. Reader Daniel will not see your unpublished comment, so if you have a message for him, contact him directly: