On Grace St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea

. On Grace St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea Apostle Paul Preaching on the Ruins. Giovanni Paolo Pannini, 1744 Apostle Paul Preaching on the Ruins. Giovanni Paolo Pannini, 1744 In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Great Apostle Paul says of himself: For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me (1 Cor. 15:9-10). See how the greatest of the Apostles speaks of himself, that it was not he that had labored, it was not he that had done the great works, enlightened the whole world, but the grace of God which was with him. He does not ascribe anything to himself although great were his works, his sufferings for Christ were innumerable, but he attributes nothing to himself, only to God’s grace. Is it for us the weak, for us negligent Christians to ascribe to ourselves the good which we had performed once or will perform? Is it for us not to notice the source of all good—the grace of God? The word “grace” you hear often, very often, at every divine service. The word “grace” may be found on almost every page of the New Testament, but in the Old Testament this word is rarely mentioned, very rarely, indeed. Why is it so: why is grace so often spoken of in the New Testament? Because the source of grace is in our Lord Jesus Christ, for we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7). This is the greatest grace, this is the source and beginning of all grace—the redemption of mankind through the Most Pure Blood of Christ: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8). We have received this gift gratis, we received gratis the redemption through Christ’s Blood. And the grace of God will overshadow any Christian who takes up his cross and follows Christ. Know that grace is necessary at the very beginning, so that we might take the path of salvation, the path of Christ, for the Lord Himself tells us: No man can come to me, except the Father which hat sent me to draw him (Jn. 6:44). It is necessary for God the Father Himself to draw us otherwise there is no beginning of the path of Christ. We read in the Acts of the Apostles what happened in the Macedonian city of Philippi, to which Apostle Paul had come to preach the Gospel. He preached in the environs of the city, on the bank of a river upon which the synagogue stood. Among those listening was a woman named Lydia, a seller of purple … whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul (Acts 16:14). You see, the Lord Himself opened her heart, to listen to what Paul was saying. Thus should the heart of each of us be touched by the finger of God and opened to perceive the great words of Christ. The grace of God is necessary at the beginning of our path to salvation. But can it be said that the grace of God is intended only for those who are predetermined for Eternal Life, that they alone can attain grace? Not at all: grace is the outpouring of the immeasurable love of God, and His love is directed to all His creation, and above all to mankind, and, therefore, the grace of God overshadows the hearts of all men; for it says in the Scripture that God is the Father of all men—of both Jews and Gentiles. He is good to all (Rom. 10:12). God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, then man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all (1 Tim. 2:4-6)—for the whole of mankind. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn. 2:2). How can this be made to agree with the fact that at the beginning of faith in Christ there must be the grace of God? There is no contradiction here, as there is not, and cannot be, in any sayings of the Holy Scripture. The immense love of God the Father is open to the whole world and His grace pours out on everyone. But does everyone accept this grace? Are there not many who trample upon it with their sins? God wants to give them grace too, but they reject it. Men are free; God does not force His grace upon anyone: He merely offers it to everybody; He is ready to give it to everybody. Is it sufficient for us to receive grace once from God, which sanctifies us in the great Sacrament of Baptism? No, it is not sufficient, not at all, we need much, much more. Know that for a virtuous life, to gain Christian virtues, to follow the thorny path of Christ, one must constantly receive God’s grace. Only sanctified by grace can we traverse the hard, thorny path, full of suffering, after Christ. We must learn to trust God, love Christ, and remember always His holy words: I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit … Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing (Jn. 15:1-2; 4-5). Remember these words well: without me ye can do nothing. If you do not abide in the love of Christ, if you are not fed by the juices from the root of the Divine Vine, then you cannot perform any good, and you shall remain alone in your feebleness, in your wretchedness. Everything that is done in you by the grace of God is done by the Father Himself through Jesus Christ: He alone will confirm you in all your good deeds, and without Him you can do nothing. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1 Cor. 3:16). Do you not know that it is only when you become a pure temple of God that the Holy Spirit will dwell in you? If you do everything good and pure with all your might, then you shall bear fruit of righteousness, fruit of goodness and holiness. Pray to God every day: “Our Father … lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the Evil One.” Are we not delivered from the Evil One with the help of the Father? Must we not ask for God’s help of grace to deliver us from all the snare of the Devil? And how often you hear at every divine service the holy words of the Litany: “Protect us, save us, have mercy upon us, and preserve us, O God, by Thy grace,” “That we may spend the rest of our days in peace and repentance, we beseech Thee, O Lord.” We repeat these petitions so often because we cannot take a single good step without God. And when we receive God’s grace should we not thank Him for this with all our hearts? Should we not thank the Father Who sent the Holy Spirit and our Redeemer and Savior the Lord Jesus Christ, Who with His Blood opened the inexhaustible fountain of Divine Grace? Oh, how grateful we should be! Oh, how thankful we must be for all and everything—for the good and the evil; for the joy and the sorrow; and for the suffering and trials we must be grateful to God Who leads us along the path of salvation, not only by way of happiness, but above all and most of all by way of suffering. May the Lord give you the abundant grace of His Holy Spirit and may He fill your hearts with meekness and filial gratitude to Him for the Blood of our Savior. Amen. St. Luke, Archbishop of Crimea

Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the illegal invasion of the Constantinople Patriarchate into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church

Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the illegal invasion of the Constantinople Patriarchate into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the illegal invasion of the Constantinople Patriarchate into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church print version September 14, 2018 18:10 The application was made at an extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on September 14, 2018 ( Journal No. 69 ). The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church received with deep regret and sorrow the statement of the Holy Synod of the Constantinople Orthodox Church about the appointment of its "exarchs" to Kiev. This decision was made without agreement with the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and His Beatitude Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, Onufriy, the only canonical head of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It is a gross violation of church law, the intrusion of one Local Church into the territory of another. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople positions the appointment of the "exarchs" as a stage in implementing the plan for granting "autocephaly" to Ukraine, which, according to his statements, is irreversible and will be brought to an end. In an attempt to substantiate the claims of the Constantinople seeks to renew jurisdiction over the Kiev Metropolis, the representatives of Fanar claim that the Kyiv Metropolis allegedly never was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Such statements are not true and completely contradict historical facts. The first department of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Kyiv Metropolitanate, throughout the centuries has been one with it, despite the political and historical hardships that sometimes broke the unity of the Russian Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, whose jurisdiction originally included the Russian Orthodox Church, up to the middle of the 15th century consistently upheld its unity, which was later reflected in the titulature of the Kyiv Metropolitans - "All Russia". And even after the actual transfer of the primate church from Kiev to Vladimir, and then to Moscow, the metropolitans of all Rus continued to be called Kiev. The temporary division of the unified metropolia of all Russia into two parts is connected with the sad consequences of the Ferrara-Florentine Council and the beginning of the union with Rome, which the Church of Constantinople initially accepted, and the Russian Church immediately rejected. In 1448 the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, without the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who at that time was in the union, appointed Metropolitan Ion of Metropolitan. Since that time, the Russian Orthodox Church has maintained its autocephalous existence. However, ten years later, in 1458, the former Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory Mamma, who was in the union and residing in Rome, ordained for Kiev an independent metropolitan - the uniate of Grigori Bolgarin, having subdued the territories now part of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Russia . By the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 1593, with the participation of all four Eastern Patriarchs, the Moscow Metropolitanate was elevated to the status of the Patriarchate. This Patriarchate united all Russian lands, as evidenced by the letter of Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius to Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in 1654, in which the latter is called "Patriarch of Moscow, Great and Little Russia". The reunification of the Kyiv Metropolis with the Russian Church took place in 1686. This was issued a corresponding act signed by Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV and members of his Synod. The document does not say a word about the temporary character of the transfer of the metropolia, as the hierarchs of Constantinople now unjustly say. There are no statements about the temporary transfer of the Kyiv Metropolitanate and in the texts of two other letters of Patriarch Dionysius from 1686 to the names of the Moscow Tsars, and to the Metropolitan of Kiev. On the contrary, in the Diplomacy of Patriarch Dionysius, the Moscow Tsars of 1686 spoke of the subordination of all Kyiv Metropolitans to the Patriarch of Moscow, Joachim, and his successors, "now and by him who is to come, and learn the oldest and the most imminent Patriarch of Moscow, as he is chirotonized from him." The interpretation of the meaning of the documents of 1686 by the representatives of the Constantinople Church does not find the slightest justification in their texts. Until the 20th century, no Local Orthodox Church, including Constantinople, disputed the jurisdiction of the Russian Church over the Kiev Metropolis. The first attempt to challenge this jurisdiction is connected with the granting by the Constantinople Patriarchate of autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church, which at that time had an autonomous status within the Russian Orthodox Church. In the unrecognized Russian Church of Tomos about the autocephaly of the Polish Church in 1924, the Patriarchate of Constantinople declared without any justification: "The initial separation from our Throne of the Kyiv Metropolis and the dependent Orthodox Churches of Lithuania and Poland and their accession to the Holy Church of Moscow was not in accordance with the canonical decrees ". Unfortunately, this is only one of the facts of the invasion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople into the canonical limits of the Russian Church in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, when the Russian Church was subjected to unparalleled atheistic persecution, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, without her knowledge and consent, undertook non-canonical steps towards the autonomous Churches that were part of it on the territory of the young states that formed on the borders of the former Russian Empire: in 1923 transformed the autonomous church on the territory of Estonia and Finland in his own archdiocese, in 1924 granted autocephalous Orthodox church of Poland 1, 1936 proclaimed its jurisdiction th in Latvia. In addition, in 1931 Constantinople incorporated Russian emigre parishes in Western Europe without the consent of the Russian Orthodox Church, transforming them into its own temporary exarchate. Particularly unsightly was the participation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in attempts to deposed the hierarch and confessor of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Tikhon, who was canonically elected in 1917. These attempts were made by atheistic authorities in the 1920s, artificially creating a renewal, modernist split in the Russian Church to undermine the authority of the Orthodox Church among believers, the "Sovietization" of the Church and its gradual annihilation. In the 1920s the Renovationists actively promoted the arrests of the Orthodox episcopate and clergy, wrote denunciations on them and seized their churches. Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory VII openly supported the Renovationists. His official representative in Moscow, Archimandrite Vasily (Dimopulo), was present at the renovation pseudo-cathedrals, and in 1924 the Patriarch Gregory himself addressed to St. Tikhon with an appeal to abdicate the Patriarchate. In the same year, 1924, the Renovationists published extracts from the minutes of the meetings of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, received by them from Archimandrite Basil (Dimopoulos). According to the extract dated May 6, 1924, Patriarch Gregory VII "accepted by invitation from the ecclesiastical circles of the Russian population" the proposal of the "appeasement of the recent conflicts in the local church of confusion and disagreement, appointing a special patriarchal commission for this." The "ecclesiastical circles of the Russian population" mentioned in the protocols were not the martyred Russian Church, which underwent severe persecution by the godless government at that time, but the schismatic groups, with this same authority, cooperated and actively supported the organized baiting of St. Patriarch Tikhon. The reasons why the Church of Constantinople supported the renaissance schism, having occupied the side of the communist regime in the struggle with the Russian Church, was openly spoken by the same archimandrite Vasily (Dimopoulos) in his address on behalf of "the entire Constantinople proletariat" addressed to one of the high ranks of godless power: "Having defeated its enemies, defeating all obstacles and becoming stronger, Soviet Russia can now respond to the requests of the proletariat of the Middle East, who is sympathetic to it, and, even more so, ebe. In your hands ... make the name of Soviet Russia even more popular in the East than it was before, and I warmly ask you, render the Patriarchate of Constantinople a great service, as a strong and strong government of a powerful power, especially since the Ecumenical Patriarch, recognized in the East as the head of everything Orthodox people, clearly showed by their actions the location to the Soviet power, which he recognized. " In another letter to the same Soviet official, Archimandrite Vasily explained what "service" he had in mind-the return of the building belonging to the Constantinople metochion in Moscow, the income from which was previously transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Having learned about the decision of Constantinople to send the "patriarchal commission" to the limits of the Russian Church, its only legitimate Head Patriarch of All Russia Tikhon expressed strong protest in connection with the uncanonical actions of his brother. His words, spoken almost hundred years ago, are actual today: "We were much embarrassed and were surprised that the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the head of the Constantinople Church, without any preliminary communication with Us, as with the legal representative and head of the entire Russian Orthodox Church , interferes in the inner life and the affairs of the autocephalous Russian Church ... Any premise of any commission without intercourse with Me, as the only legitimate and Orthodox First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, without My knowledge, is not legal but will not be accepted by the Russian Orthodox people and will not bring peace, but even greater confusion and division into the life of the long-suffering Russian Orthodox Church. " The circumstances of the time prevented the sending of this commission to Moscow. Her arrival would mean more than just interference, but a direct invasion of the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, as is currently the case. At the cost of the blood of many thousands of new martyrs, the Russian Church survived in those years, seeking to cover with love this sad page of its relations with the Church of Constantinople. However, in the 1990s, during the new trials of the Russian Church, connected with deep geopolitical upheavals, the non-brotherly conduct of the Church of Constantinople again fully manifested itself. In particular, despite the fact that in 1978 the Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitri declared Tomos 1923 to be abolished to transfer to the Constantinopolitan jurisdiction of the Estonian Orthodox Church, in 1996 the Patriarchate of Constantinople anticanonically extended its jurisdiction to Estonia, and the Moscow Patriarchate was temporarily forced to break off the eucharistic communion with him. During the same period, the first attempts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to intervene in Ukrainian church affairs were undertaken. In 1995, the Ukrainian schismatic communities in the United States and the countries of the Diaspora were accepted into the jurisdiction of Constantinople. In the same year Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew wrote a promise to Patriarch Alexy that the adopted communities would not "cooperate or have contact with other Ukrainian schismatic groups." Assurances that representatives of the Ukrainian bishopric of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the US and Canada will not come into contact and serve with the schismatics, were not met. The Patriarchate of Constantinople did not take measures to strengthen their canonical consciousness and was dragged into the anticanonical process of legalizing the split in Ukraine by creating a parallel church structure and giving it an autocephalous status. The position on the question of autocephaly, now voiced by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, completely contradicts the agreed position of all Local Orthodox Churches, developed as a result of difficult discussions in preparation for the Holy and Great Council and recorded in the document "Autocephaly and the Way of Its Proclamation" all Local Churches, including the Church of Constantinople. In the absence of an official request for autocephaly from the episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew accepted for consideration a request from the Ukrainian government and dissenters, which completely contradicts his own position, which he until recently occupied and repeatedly stated, including publicly. In particular, in January 2001, in an interview with the Greek newspaper Nea Ellada, he said: "Autocephaly and autonomy are bestowed by the whole Church on the decision of the Ecumenical Council. Since, for various reasons, the convening of the Ecumenical Council is impossible, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as the coordinator of all Orthodox Churches, grants autocephaly or autonomy, provided that they approve of it. " Behind the latest unilateral actions and statements of Patriarch Bartholomew stand ecclesiological ideas alien to Orthodoxy. Recently, speaking before the meeting of hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarch Bartholomew asserted that "Orthodoxy can not exist without the Ecumenical Patriarchate", that "for the Orthodoxy the Ecumenical Patriarchate serves as a leaven that" ferments all the dough "(Galatians 5: 9) of the Church and history" . These statements are difficult to assess otherwise than an attempt to rebuild Orthodox ecclesiology according to the Roman Catholic model. The recent decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople about the admissibility of a second marriage for the clergy caused special grief in the Russian Orthodox Church. This decision is a violation of the Holy Canons (17 rules of the Holy Apostle, 3 rules of the Trullo Council, 1 rule of the Neo-Caesarea Council, 12 rules of St. Basil the Great), tramples on all-Orthodox consent and in fact is a rejection of the results of the Cretan Council of 2016, the recognition of which the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the remaining Local Churches. In attempts to establish their nonexistent and never existed authority in the Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople is currently intervening in the church life in Ukraine. In their statements the hierarchs of the Church of Constantinople allow themselves to call "anti-canonical" Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Onuphrius on the grounds that he does not commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople. Meanwhile, earlier at the Meeting of the Primates of the Local Churches in Chambesy in January 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew publicly called Metropolitan Onuphrius the only canonical Primate of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. At the same time, the Primate of the Church of Constantinople promised that neither during the Cretan Council nor after it will any effort be made to legalize the split or unilaterally grant someone autocephaly. Sadly we have to state that this promise has now been violated. The unilateral, anticanonical actions of the Constantinople see on the territory of Ukraine, committed with total disregard of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, are direct support for the Ukrainian split. Among the multimillion-strong flock of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, it is extremely tempting that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, considering itself the Mother Church for the Ukrainian Church, gives its daughters instead of bread a stone and a snake instead of a fish (Luke 11:11). The deep concern of the Russian Orthodox Church with the erroneous and distorted representation of the Church of Constantinople about what was happening in Ukraine was personally conveyed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill to Patriarch Bartholomew on August 31, 2018. However, as further events showed, the voice of the Russian Church was not heard and a week after the meeting The Patriarchate of Constantinople published an anticanonical decision to appoint its "exarchs" to Kiev. In a critical situation, when the Constantinople side practically refused to resolve the issue through dialogue, the Moscow Patriarchate is forced to suspend the prayerful remembrance of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople during the divine service and with deep regret to suspend the service with the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and to interrupt the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Episcopal Assemblies, в богословских диалогах, многосторонних комиссиях и всех прочих структурах, в которых председательствуют или the representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are co-chairs. In case of continuation of the anti-canonical activity of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the territory of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, we will be compelled to completely break the eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. All responsibility for the tragic consequences of this division will fall personally on the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew and the bishops who support him. Realizing that what is happening is a danger to the entire world Orthodoxy, we are addressing this difficult hour for support to the Local Autocephalous Churches, we call upon the Primate of Churches to understand the common responsibility for the fate of world Orthodoxy and initiate a fraternal all-Orthodox discussion of the church situation in Ukraine. We appeal to the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church with a call for a hot prayer for the preservation of the unity of Holy Orthodoxy. *** 1 - Driven by a sincere desire to support Orthodoxy, which is in the minority and sometimes in a rather difficult situation, the Moscow Patriarchate for its part granted in 1948 the autocephalous rights of the Orthodox Church in Poland and confirmed the autonomous status of the Orthodox Church in Finland, granted by His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon in 1921, agreeing in 1957 to forget all canonical disputes and misunderstandings between the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church, to recognize the Finnish Archbishopric in the existing status and transfer to its jurisdiction the Novo-Valaam Monastery, after which the prayer-canonical communion was restored.