www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Questions concerning Eastern Europe during and since the USSR

I've tried a couple of times to asks some questions about Orthodox and Eastern Catholic relations during and since the USSR but both times the threads were moved elsewhere and then closed. I do wish to read from Fr. Anthony and from Stuart as well as others so I hope this thread survives.

I'll ask my first question. From some very trusted friends I have asked why they did not convert to Orthodoxy thinking I might do the same. In fact I was invited to become a priest in Orthodoxy several years ago. My friend had and has friends in Central and Eastern Europe. They told me that they would never convert because of the Orthodox persecution and in some cases murder of some of their friends and relatives both clergy and laity. I do not wish to cause scandal but if we aren't going to be serious about this subject how are we ever to hope for common understanding and appreciation.

My first question is this: "Were my friends justified in their charge that Orthodox people persecuted and killed Eastern Catholic people in Eastern and Central Europe?"

Let me add, I do realize that there were many awful things that occurred in that part of the world and there are awful things that go on all over the world. I'm just trying to understand.

CDL

It's not a matter of "black and white". In the case of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and the UGCC, we shared persecution and suppression, and mutually had our temples destroyed or forceably given to the MP. And many clergy and faithful of the MP suffered as well. It is not simply a matter of "Orthodox persecution" but rather a matter of Soviet persecution with various levels of complicity within the MP hierarchy after the capitulation of Sergius.

It's not clear to me that we need to openly discuss this topic in order to have common understanding and appreciation. Just because something is true doesn't neccesarily mean that discussion of it is helpful at a particular point in time.

Looking at Matthew 10:26, where Jesus tells the disciples how to react to persecution and the concealment of the truth that results: "Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."

But this seems to be partly an eschatological promise referring e.g. to Rev. 20.

Haydock's Bible Commentary comments on Matthew 10:26 with a gloss on St. John Chrysostom: "Patience for a while, and soon your charity, which is now unknown, shall be renowned throughout the whole earth. You shall be blessed by all as the greatest benefactors, and the cultivators of virtue, while the words of your adversaries shall be heard with the greatest contempt. (St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxv.)" (I think the correct reference is perhaps actually to the 34th homily on St. Matthew's Gospel [ccel.org].)

But the promise doesn't neccesarily mean we need to decide know it now... decide it now... uncover it now. Perhaps when we have grown in faith and holiness and virtue and desire for unity, that will be the time to uncover the truth of that time.

It seems clear to me that repentance and forgiveness, perhaps on both sides, is necessary before there is any opportunity for reunion. Until that happens and as long as we pretend it doesn't matter I see no reason for the two lungs of the Church to reunite.

The first thing to understand, insofar as the communist oppression went, is it affected all Christians, whether Orthodox or Catholic or Protestant. The Soviet Union and its satellite countries were all officially atheist societies, in which all forms of Christianity were illegal, albeit some were tolerated to a degree, when it was useful to the regime. Those Churches and ecclesial communities that were permitted to operate did so under the heavy thumb of state control and were totally infiltrated by members of the state security apparatus.

Those who outwardly professed religious belief were systematically barred from the best schools and from all but the most menial employment, were harassed and sometimes arrested and imprisoned. The old, the mentally infirm and other useless mouths were allowed the comfort of religion, but they were the only ones.

It is thus foolish to speak of the "Orthodox" oppressing the Greek Catholics during the Soviet era, as both Churches were under constant attack. Granted, the Greek Catholic Church was formally abolished by a series of false synods presided over by low-ranking Catholic and Orthodox clergy brow-beaten, threatened and tortured into compliance. It is not our place to judge these men--we did not suffer what they did, and cannot say we would not have done the same. If there is a sin of which the Orthodox Church is guilty, it is not that they were forced to participate in these false synods, but that, forty years onward, they did not use the opportunity to confess and apologize for their role in them, but rather that, to this day, they persist in saying that these were authentic, legitimate synods whose result still stand.

While men who called themselves Orthodox might have been complicit in the suppression of the Greek Catholics and violence against individual Greek Catholics, circumstances dictate that most crimes against them were committed by communists, members of the CPSU and officers of the NKVD or KGB. And these same members of the NKVD and KGB committed far more crimes against our Orthodox brethren, just by shear weight of numbers.

They shared the cup of suffering, they bore a common cross in Christ, and this should be our common bond, not something that divides us.

Now, within the Orthodox community there are still those who deny the complicity of the Orthodox hierarchy in the suppression of the Greek Catholic Church, but there are also Greek Catholics who unfairly conflate the communist authorities with the Orthodox Church. There are also some, who chose to go underground when the Greek Catholic Church was outlawed, who look down on those Greek Catholics--clergy and laity alike--who chose to accept incorporation into the Orthodox Church, which had no practical consequences for them other than the ability to continue observing their faith in a modicum of peace (if not security). Is this not a kind of Donatism within our own ranks? And is the inability to forgive the actual sins of the Orthodox against the Greek Catholics itself a sin? Rather than picking at old scabs and trying to assign blame to men long dead, we would do better to heal our wounds and work together to deal with the overwhelming problems that face the Church, both here and in Eastern Europe.

All that is true. But the KGB did not infiltrate Catholicism or Protestantism so far as I know. If they did then clear up my confusion. I shall remind my friends of your reminders but I don't think it will help.

Really? I guess you missed the story about one of Karol Wotyla's closest associates in Krakow was a mole for the Polish intelligence service. See this story: Polish Bishops Launch Probe of Communist Infiltration in Catholic Church [catholic.org]

The East German Stasi and other Soviet-allied intelligence services also had tremendous success infiltrating parish and diocesan clergy throughout the Eastern Europe. See here: More Evidence of Communist Infiltration of the Catholic Church [realclearreligion.com]

In short, no Church was immune, no Church uncompromised by the cancer that was the Soviet system.

Were there similar efforts among the Orthodox?

Stuart, I learn so much from you. Thanks for all your posts!

As I said, the Soviets made every effort to infiltrate and suborn all Churches and ecclesial communities; none were immune. Inside the Soviet Union, the KGB of course reviewed the dossiers of all applicants for ordination, and all candidates for episcopal office were vetted and could not be ordained without prior approval by the Central Committee of the CPSU.

All clergy were required to report on their parishioners, but most did the minimum necessary to get by, reporting idle chit-chat and nothing that would be harmful to other persons (just going to church put the faithful in the Party's black book). A very few were not merely passive but active resisters, and these ended up either in the GULAG or worse. Some, it is sad to say, were active collaborators, but until the Soviet archives are re-opened, the full extent of their collaboration will be unknown.

There is very strong evidence that Patriarch Alexei II was actually a colonel in the KGB. If so, it is also true that upon being appointed Patriarch he was both vocal and active in promoting the independence of the Church, and he was a central figure in opposition to the attempted Communist coup of 1991. A complex man, he found himself in a complex situation, and appears to have done his best to negotiate a course that would best protect the Orthodox Church.

In Romania, Ceaucescu was far more openly oppressive than the CPSU, and had totally infiltrated the ranks of the upper clergy. Unlike the Orthodox Church in Russia, the Romanian Orthodox Church went through a period of confession and metanoia after the fall of Ceaucescu. Metropolitan Nicolae of Banat, for instance, admitted to collaboration with the Securitate and denounced both his and other clerics' collaboration as the "prostitution of the Church". Most notably, Patriarch Teoctist of blessed memory not only admitted his own collaboration, but resigned the patriarchate and retired to a monastery--only to be recalled by overwhelming demand of the faithful.

Despite the heavy hand of Ceaucescu's anti-religion campaign, there were still numerous examples of martyrs and confessors, one of whom, Father Georghiu Calciu, I had the distinct privilege to meet on several occasions (exiled from Romania, he became a priest at Holy Cross Romanian Orthodox Church [sfantacruce.org] in Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia. The man was a living saint; he radiated holiness, even if one did not know his story, which is nicely summed up here: Father George Calciu [stpaulsirvine.org] .

To sum up, then--yes, the Orthodox Church was compromised during the Soviet era; so too was every Church and ecclesial community, as well as every other social institution. The cancer metastasized throughout the entire body politic. In East Germany, one in three adults was on the payroll of the Stasi; everyone informed on everyone else. The situation was similar in the hell-hole of Ceaucescu's Romania. But for every collaborator there was also a resistor, a witness for Christ who would not be crushed, or silenced, lights who shone in the darkness. And even those who collaborated did so under duress, and most either tried to protect the Church as best they could within the system, or to subvert the system while appearing to comply with it.

The most important thing for all of us to remember is we were not there. We did not live this. We did not have to make any of these hard choices. And therefore, we cannot stand in judgment of their decisions, let alone say that we could or would have done differently under the same circumstances.

My only wish is that, for the sake of the Church, the truth would be told, without acrimony and without judgment or condemnation, so that, through repentance and forgiveness, the Church might be healed and regain its moral center.

I shall encourage my friends to come here and discuss this matter.

True.

According what I understand from some posters, the key question is: Is the discussion (whichever discussion) conducive to the ultimate goal of a union between Rome and Orthodox? If it isn't, then it isn't a worthwhile discussion. (For them, I mean; of course others may have a different opinion.)

Great posts Stuart. Very informative.


I think Carson D was referring to "Polish Bishops Launch Probe of Communist Infiltration in Catholic Church".

I think I answered that question: Among the Russians, no; among the Romanians, Albanians and others, yes.

Perhaps what is inferred is that we will never progress to the future if we dwell in the past.