2020-11-17

EL DIABLO PADRE DE LA MENTIRA ES UN EMBUSTERO- LENIN DECÍA QUE CONTAR LA VERDAD ES UN PREGUICIO BURGUÉS `POR LO CUAL MENTIR SE JUSTIFICA EN EL OBJETIVO- ES LEMA COPIADO DE MACHIAVELLO QUE COPIARON PEDRO SANCHEZ Y LOS JESUITAS DE IGNACIO DE LOYOLA UN SANTO AL QUE HABÍA QUE DESTRONAR POR BORRACHO Y PAJILLERO. LA GRAN EVASIÓN DE CRIMEA

THE DECIEVED

To the 100-year anniversary of the Russian Exodus

“Telling the truth is a petty bourgeois prejudice,
while lying, to the contrary, is often justified by its end.”
Lenin’s words, from the recollections of Yu. P. Annenkov

The devil is a liar, and the father of it.
cf. John 8:44

Boris ShishkinBoris ShishkinIn November 1920, a mass of people (military personnel and refugees) accumulated on the Crimean Peninsula. When the Red army was advancing on it, many were faced with the question of whether to flee their Motherland or to stay. On November 11, General Wrangel published an edict announcing the beginning of evacuation. Thus began the Russian exodus…

It must be said that the majority of those who could not be reconciled with the new regime managed to leave the Crimea. At the same time, many of those who stayed behind were inspired by the sheer scale of change and the “enormity” of plans. It would seem that the time had really come when justice would finally triumph, and all the “enslaved” would be “liberated”. Only in order to attain this “universal justice”, they were supposed to do it “with their own hands”—that is, by decisive action. And if at the beginning few understood what this really meant, with the onset of the era of “militant communism” and the “Red terror”, many reeled in horror at the new regime, realizing that for it, conscience would be replaced by class sensitivity and partisan expedience. Nevertheless, many still had hope that the terrible cruelty of war time would soon be replaced by the prudent temperance of peaceful building. But alas, it did not turn out that way…

Among those who trusted the new government but were later deceived and destroyed was my great uncle, Boris Shishkin. He was a young writer who had returned from the WWI front, far from politics, dreaming of creative work, filled with hopes and plans…

Not long before he was executed on November 6, 1921, Boris managed to write a poem entitled, “To the Wrangelites”. Here is the text:

Like coffins, sarcophagi, the ships,
Packed tightly with rebellious troops,
Across dark waves that leapt and looped,
They sadly rolled and slipped
Across to lands they never missed,
There slowly run ashore. The crowd sails past
The copper sunsets through the mist
To look upon the mooring dead.
The wind kicked up, and there they laughed
Hollow voices from the graves.
As to the eaves,
Orders loudly uttered, fast.
Through palaces the general leads
To the marble tombs of Scutari…1

It’s notable that Boris did not risk writing the poem’s whole name but only indicated it, placing a hyphen between the first and final letters. This was also a sign of the times, when the degree of cruelty and implacability was reaching its peak, and the slightest misstep in conduct or some characteristic trait in clothing and outward appearance, or an incautious word could cost you your life. Apparently, Boris understood this. But he trusted anyway, and stayed… Just like tens of thousands of others who either couldn’t or wouldn’t flee the Motherland, hoping that the new government would be reasonable and humane. After all, many didn’t even fight directly, but were only drawn to one degree or another into the chaos of civil war.

From the text of that poem we can surmise that Boris is sympathetic to the new regime and calls the White army “rebellious troops”. He considers their aims and disposition of spirit to be hopeless and even dead in spirit and prospects. Thus the image of ships like sarcophagi or coffins. And he even calls those who moor at the foreign shores “dead men”… It’s a heavy poem, but Boris characterizes as hopeless (remarkably) not his own situation, but that of those who left the Motherland.

Now it is clear that Boris was mistaken in his assessment of the emigres’ future as hopeless—if only because the Russian emigration played its role in spreading Russian culture and Russian thought throughout the world. But it is also obvious that many of those Russians remaining on the peninsula had a similarly pessimistic view of their compatriots who left their Motherland. It was especially bitter to admit that the majority of them would soon learn what real hopelessness and sacrilege is, not only in the religious but also in the just plain human and moral sense…

Not long before the Red army battalions captured the Crimea, on September 12, 1920, Pravda newspaper published a call to “officers, soldiers, Cossacks, and navy sailors of Wrangel’s army”, stating that all the participants of the White movement who surrendered were promised amnesty.

“Those who honestly and voluntarily come to side of the Soviet authorities,” stated this call, “will not be punished. We guarantee full amnesty to all who come over to the side of the Soviet government.”

Later, on November 12, now under the conditions of the beginning evacuation, the Red army commanders published a new appeal, where among other things it was stated:

“We do not aim for revenge. Whoever lays down their arms will be given the opportunity to redeem their guilt before the people through honest labor.”

And further on:

“We are publishing an edict to the soviet forces about knightly treatment of those enemies who surrender.”

Boris Shishkin’s applicationBoris Shishkin’s applicationJust a few days after the soviet regime took over in the Crimea, when the compulsory registration of all “suspicious elements” was announced, these appeals played their fatal role, because people went to registration centers and openly filled out the forms in hopes of mercy and the promised amnesty.

But what happened after that not only defies description, but even ordinary human reason. Organized in the Crimea in 1920-21 was real, bloody slaughter.

Murdered were not only officers and soldiers who served in the White army, and not only those who were forced to cooperate with it in one way or another, but a huge swathe of the civilian population that had no direct relationship to the military counterrevolution, from army nurses to those who simply didn’t fit into the new life due to their “class affiliation”. A person could be shot simply because he was a servant of one or another Tsarist Russian agency, was a businessman, a priest, a teacher, etc.

On November 17, 1920, the Crimean Revolutionary Committee published order No. 4 ordering compulsory registration within a three-day period of foreigners, persons who had arrived in the Crimea during the period of the soviet government’s absence, officers, government officials, and soldiers of Wrangel’s army.

Boris also went and registered. His registration form is dated December 11, 1920, on which he open-heartedly and sincerely admits that “in 1920 I served in the White army headquarters in the city of Alusht as a clerk”; moreover he calls himself “sympathetic to the R. C. P.”, that is, the Russian communist party. What was the sense of this “sympathy”, considering Boris was far from politics?

I think that he was set to work and live under the conditions of the “new world”, so to say, “without any stones behind his lapel”, because he basically had nothing to lose in his former life, nothing to cling to. He came from the impoverished nobility. He never received a higher education, partly because his family was too poor. From an early age he had worked physically, and later as a writer. His participation in the First World War had led him to an awareness of the higher values of human life and peaceful coexistence among people and nations. He was also inspired by the hope of doing away with the glaring inequality between the bitter poverty of the “laboring and burdened”, and the idle luxury and self-satisfaction of the “powerful of this world”…

But the new regime had no intention of plummeting the depths of the “alien element’s” psychological disposition, and so the majority of those who came and voluntarily registered were destroyed during the following months, with truly demonic and merciless energy.

Old YaltaOld Yalta    

As the result of a grandiose deception, approximately (of course no one can establish the exact number) 20 to 120 thousand people, by different reckonings, were murdered in the Crimea in the early 1920s alone—the large discrepancy itself an indication of the monstrous scale and viciousness of the slaughter, the victims being simply impossible to count. It is horrifying to even imagine what must have taken place on the blessed Crimean land, what a terrible and pitiless machine must have turned its wheels in order to carry out this hellish work. But 120,000 is only the number of victims of the Red terror according to the flesh, so to speak; many of them, we hope, redeemed many sins through their sufferings and deaths and acquired the Kingdom of Heaven.

But from the spiritual point of view, it is more frightening for those who signed the death sentences, those who tortured and shot others with diabolical energy and resolve. Those executioners and members of all sorts of “chrezvychaiki”,2 “troiki”,3 and “special departments”… And how many millions of soviet people were then raised in godlessness? Those are the ones we really need to cry about! In this lies the worst crime not only of the new regime, but also of those who prepared the way for its coming: the destruction of countless souls for eternity! A terrible cost for the doubtful happiness of building the “most just society in the world”…

According to the testimony of his family and friends, shaken by the horrors of the Great War and civil strife, Boris dreamed of helping at least a little the most defenseless victims of that adult insanity—the children. He wanted to help them by his creativity and service. He would never realize this dream, but after Boris’s death, his sister, Vera Anatolievna Shishkina, embodied her brother’s plan and went to work in the Yalta children’s home, where she continued working for many years.

Employees of the Yalta children’s home.Employees of the Yalta children’s home.    

Now many are talking about the need for reconciliation, relatively speaking, between White and Red Russia. A monument is even being built in Sebastapol about this, but the construction work is going very laboriously. The source of such ideas is understandable—the country needs to live on, grow, and build, and this is not possible in an atmosphere of permanent disagreement and smoldering enmity.

But if we can talk about the need to unite the descendants of the Whites and the Reds in building a new nation, then we have to openly admit that the foundation of this new building can only be the Stone “already placed”—that is, Christ. It is Orthodox faith and the strong and multi-faceted Russian culture that grew on its soil. Everything else is a more or less obvious deception.

Priest Dimitry Shishkin
Translation by OrthoChristian.com

Pravoslavie.ru

11/17/2020

1 Scutari is an outlying region of Istanbul, known among other things for its huge cemeteries.

2 “Extraordinary commission against counter-revolution and sabotage”, existing from 1918–1922).—Trans.

3 A “troika” in that era was “peoples court” of three, empowered to independently pronounce sentence based on their own assessment. They usually sentenced people to death.—Trans.

See also 

GRACIAS AL METROPOLITA ONOFRE Y AL PATRIARCA CIRILO No habrá cisma entre las iglesias ucrania y de Rusia

 

“THE STRENGTH OF UKRAINE IS IN ITS ORTHODOX FAITH”

A Talk with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik) for the 30th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

    

2020 is a jubilee year for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Thirty years ago, in late October 1990, Patriarch Alexiy II signed a gramota granting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent status with broad rights of autonomy. Since then, the canonical Church in Ukraine has faced all sorts of trials, including a bloody schism and open persecution from the powers that be.

Our conversation with Abbess Seraphim (Shevchik), a member of the Inter-Council Presence of the Russian Orthodox Church and head of the Ukrainian Church’s Synodal Church and Culture Department, concerns this difficult, sometimes dramatic period. Mother Seraphima is the author of more than twenty books and monographs dedicated to the life of the UOC and the history of Orthodoxy in Ukraine, the organizer and director of the Orthodox Ukraine and Christian Odessa museums, and numerous exhibitions and conferences, the latest of which was dedicated to the thirtieth anniversary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Thirty years ago…

The gramota of His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II granting independent governance to the Ukrainian Orthodox ChurchThe gramota of His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II granting independent governance to the Ukrainian Orthodox ChurchBefore our conversation with Matushka Seraphima, we would like to remind our dear readers of some historical and political fragments of that distant period that preceded Patriarch Alexiy II’s granting of the gramota, or as it is called now, the tomos, granting independence and self-governance to the UOC.

In late 1989, after Mikhail Gorbachev’s visit to the Vatican at the request of Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), the first Polish-born pontiff, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church, which cooperated with the German occupiers during the war and ceased to exist in the USSR in 1946, was reanimated. A wave of seizures of Orthodox churches and cathedrals swept throughout western Ukraine; Orthodox clergy and their families were driven out of Church rectories onto the streets and were subject to violence and persecution.

In February 1990, Archbishop Makary (Svistun; † 2007) of Ivano-Frankivsk locked himself up in Holy Resurrection Cathedral in protest of the raiding by the Greek Catholics and declared an indefinite hunger strike, which caused a mixed reaction in the Council for Religious Affairs of the USSR—Vladyka was removed from the cathedra by decree of Philaret Denisenko, at that time a lawful hierarch of the UOC.

Metropolitan Makary (Svistun)Metropolitan Makary (Svistun)Also in 1989, the Council for Religious Affairs of the USSR registered the “Ukrainian Autocephalous Church of the Kiev Patriarchate,” which emerged in Ukraine in the early twentieth century, born in the scum of the revolutionary upheavals of 1919-20 and popularly known as the “self-consecrators—Lipkivskyites” (after the name of the leader of the Ukrainian schism Vasily LIpkivsky)—supported by the Bolsheviks to weaken the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, and which ceased to exist in the USSR in 1937.

Among the activists of the Ukrainian schismatics was the future “Patriarch” of the UAOC Mstislav (Skrypnyk, 1898-1993), then still the layman Stepan Ivanovich Skrypnyk who was the nephew of Simon Petliura and served in the latter’s Ukrainian National Republic troops as a personal adjutant, who was “ordained” in 1942 during the nazi occupation, and fled to Canada and American after the war.

On June 5, 1990, at the 1st Council of the UAOC in Kiev, Mstislav was elected the “Patriarch of Kiev and All Ukraine,” and in October of the same year, he returned to Ukraine and visited Kiev and Lvov. On November 18, 1990, with the kind permission of the authorities, he was “enthroned” in St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. Mstislav became the first “Patriarch of the UAOC.” After the fall of the USSR in 1991, he arrived in Kiev from the U.S. again in July 1992, and by order of the first president of Ukraine, he was generously provided with the former sanatorium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine in Puscha-Voditsa, near Kiev, where Mstislav met with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk on July 2.

Mstislav SkripnikMstislav SkripnikAdditionally, public national-patriotic movements became active in Ukraine, the radical representatives of which waged an open campaign against the Ukrainian Exarchate of the ROC, and after the exarchate was granted independence—against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In 1992, Ukrainian Orthodoxy suffered a new calamity in the person of the schismatic Philaret Denisenko, a formerly lawful hierarch who was the exarch of the Ukrainian Exarchate of the ROC for many years. Accepting the gramota of independence and self-governance from the hand of His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II, Philaret hoped to achieve full autocephaly in the future, with the title of “Patriarch of All Ukraine.”

Fulfilling the duties of Locum Tenens after the death of Patriarch Pimen († 5/30/1990), he could not bear defeat in the election of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the Local Council of the ROC in June 1990. The author of these lines, then working in the Metropolia of the UOC as editor of an Orthodox newspaper, witnessed how the klobuk of the Patriarch of Moscow was sewn for Philaret and how containers full of his things were prepared for moving to Moscow. But the future schismatic suffered a crushing defeat in the Patriarchal election, receiving only 66 votes in the election held at Danilov Monastery in Moscow, against 139 for the future Patriarch Alexiy (Ridiger), and 107 for Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan), the future primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Leader of the Ukrainian schismatics, the former Metropolitan Philaret DenisenkoLeader of the Ukrainian schismatics, the former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko    

As we can see, even on the eve of gaining independence and self-governance, and in the subsequent period of its activity, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has born the cross of great trials.

The people of God united around their hierarchs”

We found Mother Seraphima in her office at the Odessa Archangel Michael Convent, which she has led for twenty-five years now.

She was negotiating the selection of exhibits for the next exhibition just then. Having finished her conversation, despite being so busy, she kindly agreed to speak with some Kiev journalists.

***

Despite being so busy, Mother kindly answered our questionsDespite being so busy, Mother kindly answered our questions    

Mother Seraphima, recalling the events of thirty years ago, tell us: How do you think the Ukrainian Orthodox Church today evaluates its reception of independence in 1990? After all, you were a novice at the famous Kiev Holy Protection Convent then, founded by St. Anastasia—the Grand Duchess Alexandra Petrovna Romanov, and which was among the monasteries of Ukraine that protested against the dictatorship of Philaret.

—All of us, the children of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, are clearly convinced today of how right a step it was for the Holy Synod of the ROC and His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II to grant the UOC the status of independence and self-governance in 1990. We can confidently say now that this historical act took place by the ineffable providence of God; that is, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has taken its rightful place in the Orthodox world and is truly autonomous, independent, self-governing, and unique in its structure. I think not even all the Local Churches that were granted autocephaly by Constantinople possess the same scope of rights as the UOC.

But now we have a new trial: the interference of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the life of the UOC—a new schism, now with the participation of the hierarchs of Istanbul.

—These non-canonical and immoral actions of Constantinople have caused pain in the family of the Orthodox Churches. As you know, many of them have showed unanimity with our Ukrainian Orthodox Church. They recognize His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry as the sole lawful primate of the UOC and the majority are opposed to the politics of Istanbul.

Matushka, let’s go back to the swashbuckling 1990s.

—Yes… Our Church received an impetus towards independent development, but from the very first days of the early 1990s, it found itself in the extremely difficult conditions of all kinds of provocations from the former Metropolitan Philaret and from the authorities, who strongly supported the schismatics.

Philaret wanted to become Patriarch of Ukraine any way he could, and he went to every length to achieve his goal: He deposed dissenting bishops and committed many unseemly deeds. But the healthy forces of the Church united and cured this disease. This is the value of the process of Church recovery and self-purification.

Despite internal vicissitudes, the actions of schismatics, and political attacks, life itself has testified that the canonical Church has a healthy core that the gates of hell cannot overcome (cf. Mt. 16:18). The people of God are united around their hierarchs, including Metropolitan Onuphry, Vladyka Agafangel, Vladyka Alypy, and others. An historical Bishops’ Council of the UOC was held in Kharkov in May 1992, which gave a canonical evaluation of Philaret’s actions, elected a new legitimate primate—His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan, † 7/05/2014), and placed a limit on the Church turmoil and unrest. In fact, the Church had reached a new historical milestone, passing through the fiery trial of schism and persecution.

His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) led the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from 1992 to 2014His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan) led the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from 1992 to 2014However, the Verkhovna Rada [Parliament] issued a resolution on the illegality of the Kharkov Council, so the authorities at that time supported Philaret. Even the Bolsheviks didn’t do that. You had your obedience then in Holy Protection Monastery and witnessed these events. As far as we know, not a single monastery in Ukraine supported the schism. Do you remember how the sisters and you personally reacted?

—Monasticism showed its strength then and gave a weighty word. For example, the monks of Holy Dormition Monastery in Odessa sent a letter to His Holiness Patriarch Alexiy II in which they categorically rejected Philaret’s idea of autocephaly and expressed unity with the Moscow Patriarchate. Other monasteries did the same, unanimously expressing unity with the Mother Church.

If we recall Holy Protection Monastery at that time, Matushka Margarita (Zyukina, † 2005)—her memorial falls right on November 10—our blessed eldress and abbess, was very worried and increased her prayers together with all the sisters. This conciliar prayer of the monastics, bishops, and laity gave a way out of the intolerable situation created in the Church by Philaret’s ambitions and authoritarian actions.

And when Metropolitan Vladimir arrived in Ukraine, I think you could say it was a national assembly: Representatives from every diocese in Ukraine and a crowd of thousands of lay people came to meet Vladyka, blocking all the streets by the station; and there was a grand procession from the station to the Lavra. Then the primates of every, I emphasize every, Local Church in the world sent written greetings to the newly-elected primate of the UOC Metropolitan Vladimir, thereby confirming that world Orthodoxy recognizes only our Church as lawful in Ukraine, as part of the Russian Orthodox Mother Church.

The Church has endured and still endures great trials coming from the political elite of the country, various parties, and radical nationalist forces’ interference in its life.

—Absolutely true. Let’s recall at least 2008, when President Viktor Yushchenko invited Patriarch Bartholomew to Ukraine without informing Metropolitan Vladimir. And he came, knowing that it violates the canons of the Church, which state that a hierarch of any Church cannot visit the territory of another Church without an invitation [from the local first hierarch]. But Patriarch Bartholomew came to Ukraine anyways, positioning himself as the rightful hierarch of this land, and he met with President Yushchenko. He received attention at the highest level of government. Already then, without the participation of the UOC, the presidential administration was holding separate negotiations on autocephaly, about giving the “Kiev Patriarchate” the status of legality, of creating an Istanbul dependency in Kiev, and so on. Oh, but what a reaction from the faithful to the visit of the guest from Istanbul!...

Viktor Yushchenko welcomes Patriarch Bartholomew, 2008Viktor Yushchenko welcomes Patriarch Bartholomew, 2008    

Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Alexiy met on Vladimir Hill on the day of 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’. The people of God, who crowded the slopes of the park around the hill, received the guest from Constantinople coldly, but joyfully applauded His Holiness [Patriarch Alexiy]. I was standing not far away and could see how Patriarch Bartholomew bowed his head low and was looking at the ground. And when the people started chanting: “Our Patriarch is Alexiy!” he winced, lowered his head, and hunched his shoulders. Then the state project failed. Yushchenko himself left the Divine Liturgy after the first exclamation, so affected was he by the shouts of the people and the absolutely clear expression of the position of the many thousands of the flock of Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Yushchenko was as if carried away from the square…

And one other detail: Our Church didn’t participate when the protocol for Patriarch Bartholomew to serve in St. Sophia Cathedral for the 1,020th anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus’ was drawn up, by no fault of our own—we were simply cut out, and Yushchenko demanded that Philaret serve with Bartholomew. But Bartholomew was forced to reject this scenario, shamefacedly explaining to Yushchenko that the schismatic Philaret had no right to serve with him. So Yushchenko asked that Philaret at least be allowed to stand nearby and pray, either in the altar, or at least in the church. This was also refused. Bartholomew understood then that this step could mean his condemnation by the whole of world Orthodoxy. So the service in St. Sophia was held without the head of the “Kiev Patriarchate,” but with His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir. On July 27, 2008, there was a service on Vladimir Hill, with the participation of Patriarch Alexiy II, Patriarch Bartholomew, His Beatitude Metropolitan Vladimir, and the primates and representatives of all the Orthodox Churches of the world. The Lord did not allow the schismatics to participate.

Part 2. Which is Our True Mother Church, and Who is our True Father?

Deacon Sergei Geruk
spoke with Abbess Seraphima (Shevchik)
Translation by Jesse Dominick

Pravoslavie.ru

11/16/2020

Comments
Here you can leave your comment on the present article, not exceeding 4000 characters. All comments will be read by the editors of OrthoChristian.Com.
Your name: 
Your e-mail: 
Enter the digits, seen on picture: