A Letter 1/31/09

Joanna shares parts of a personal letter.

St. Ninnidh Inismacsaint
Holy Fathers Athanasios and Cyril, Arcgbishops of Alexandria
January 18/31

Dear ___N___,

Clearly we never should have received St. Andrew's parish into our ROCA(A) with all their doubts. It has turned out to be a major embarrassment and we embarrassed ourselves. I like how you say that we let them in with a banana peel under each foot.

The battle that Vl. Agafangel is having with defining our position regarding the MP is a battle that has been going on for decades. St. Philaret of NY was also criticized and misunderstood from both the left and the right.

The R-splits (super-correct) have always been demanding a black&white statement from us. But now there is another group with the same debating/official/statement mentality who are not super-correct. They seem to be ROCOR Refugees, but with that same "horizontal" legalistic mentality of the super-correct. They do not recognize that ROCO(A) is the sole valid continuation of ROCOR, but it seems they would like to have it PROVED to them. It is obvious they are in distress.

But they do not seem to accept any help except in the form they want - which is more and more "official statements." And that does not help them. It only encourages their legalistic thinking. I had one even tell me that he would not use prayer to help him understand, the only thing he would use is official statements. This particular one has interpreted ROCA(A)'s policy to mean that we definitely say the MP has grace, therefore he believes if he is in the MP he is in the Church.

. . .

All through ___xxx___'s letters to me you can see where he is putting words in my mouth that make extensive and grand assumptions from just a few of my words. I read some of the stuff he writes about what he thinks I said and WOW! Where did he get that? It was turning into one of those situations where the more I said, the more material I gave him to misinterpret.

The other guy who was like this with me recently (see Cyprianites blog - the "Joanna's Tangle") accused us (I assume he meant ROCA laymen) of giving "nebulous" answers.

How can we make ourselves understood to those who do not have the capacity to understand? This has been a long-time question. To try to answer that, we explain that MP is "sick." I've twice now used analogies that basically show this concept of "sick." With the first ("Joanna's Tangle") I used the analogy of my dog being stolen. With another guy I used the analogy of Hitler still being a human even though he was evil. Both of my attempts to verticalize their horizontal thinking were met with THEM starting to get angry and cutting off the conversation. These people are not super-corrects, but they have that same black&white mentality. They are not World Orthodox either. We are seeing a new brand of horizontal thinking - could it be from the new brand of ROCOR which is now ROCOR(MP)?

What should I call these folks? The number of them I've met is growing. Maybe just "legal types" will do for now.

These people find that they do not FIT either in World Orthodoxy or in the Super-Correct. But since ROCOR(MP) left the Royal Path - then WHERE ARE THEY? This clearly shows that the Royal Path is not a MIXTURE of the World Orthodoxy and the Super-Correct. When you leave this Royal Path you've entered into SOME kind of horizontal path and way of thinking. And it appears that the horizontal paths are just incapable of seeing the Royal Path. Because of this, they draw their own insulting conclusions about us, rather than try to understand.

We must not let ourselves be disturbed by what other people think. It is not that we don't define the Royal Path - it is that the horizontal thinkers either CAN NOT or WILL NOT understand.

The Church is a living organism. A body. Bodies have the capacity of being sick, imprisoned, mistaken, tortured, possessed, kidnapped, overfed, underfed, ___fill-in-the-blank___- all these things can happen without the body being instantly totally dead. And it is possible to heal. We must maintain that, despite the shrill criticism from the super-correct. For lack of a better way to express the Royal Path, we must not be afraid to say "sick" in describing the MP. Otherwise we inadvertently condone the idea of "why not join them, then?" to our weaker brothers.

Cyprianite! And proud of it! This is the Royal Path! We are in good company!

As far as the MP getting better some day - YES! We fully expect that. This is why one of the things we are praying for is the "restoration of the throne of the Orthodox Tsar" which is something Vl. Agafangel has said we need to pray for (officially) and in our daily home prayers. The future Tsar is going to purge the MP of all the false clergy - and that is going to be virtually all of them.

Because of the way horizontal thinkers abuse official statements - I'm glad we avoid making one. They extrapolate and twist what they imagine to be between the lines. We are better off suffering our present grief. Vertical thinkers will find us, as God leads them to us.

Love, Joanna

Joanna's Thoughts, Notes, Observations

This is a draft subject to revision:


8. It is not my way to take facts and form my impressions from the facts. This seems to be the super-correct method. My method is the opposite, my impressions are what interpret the facts. And my impression of the super-correct is that they are terribly tragically fragmented, and therefore, disqualified to interpret the facts.


7. ....√the "false telescope" theory I.M.Andreyev writes of (Is There Grace In The MP?). I understand, but I do not see the situation in the MP as a telescope. The MP was started with a valid link - however weak and betraying that link (Sergius) - and we know that the grace does not depend on the piety of the hierarch. It could be through even this "thread" that God serves people who approach with fear and faith (and true forgivable ignorance). We do know that the Russian Church will be restored by God for the sake of the Faithful http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/autobio/story.html

6. ....√St. John M. says "sick" and does not say "graceless". Yet St. John endorses Blessed Abp. Averky and St. Philaret, who do use the word "graceless." But neither Blessed Abp. Averky nor St. Philaret were willing to make an official declaration......


5. The anti-Cyprianites perceive Cyprianism as giving ecumenism a "foot in the door." They also say that Cyprianism was the first step of ROCOR submitting to the MP. This is a tempting thought, for if ROCOR would only declare the doubtful jurisdictions graceless, then they would not consider uniting with them.
But, looking at it logically we see something else. If Cyprianism causes a traditionally-minded jurisdiction (Royal Path Churches) to flirt with ecumenism, then long before this the SIR or at least one other of the Sister Churches would have succumbed. If Cyprianism causes an Old Calendar jurisdiction to unite with it's New Calendar so-called "mother," then the other Royal Path Churches would also be in the process of submitting to their so-called "mothers."
What we actually see instead is quite different. What we see are two groups: anti-Cyprianites and Cyprianites. All of the anti-Cyprianites are disunited, and all of the Cyprianites are united. So logically, looking at the facts, it appears more that anti-Cyprianism causes disunity and fragmentation (among those that are in full agreement about this important issue!)
But, it would probably be more accurate to say that groups who are prone to anti-Cyprianism are also prone to disunity. For whatever reasons which are not quite clear, although St. John of Shanghai & San Francisco sure sheds some light on this in his report The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad. (posted December 17, 2008 on the ROCOR Refugees Blog)


4. In the prophecies on the future of Russia it says that God will send a Tsar who will purge the Church of the false/blasphemous hierarchs (which will be nearly all of them). The Church will be "purged," not "resurrected from the dead," not started anew and built from scratch. But the already existing Church (MP) will cleansed, healed of mortal spiritual diseases.


3. Along with Fr. Victor Dobroff, I notice that in the beginning of the Book of Revelations, God writes letters to seven Churches. Not all seven are completely faithful to God, yet God considers all of them His. (Of course, I prefer to be in the Church He praises as being the most faithful...)


2. In 1996 I experienced grace at my baptism in a new calendar OCA church. Same year/same Church, my civil husband, who had witchcraft spells on him, was unable to remain in the Church for more than a few minutes at a time, even though he tried very hard to stay in. If the Church were graceless, why were the demons so afraid? My husband could go into any heterodox church without any trouble.
In 2008 I experienced grace at my goddaughter's baptism in a ROCOR-MP parish with a super-pro-union priest.


1. We do not know who does and who does not have grace. It does not matter how many Holy Fathers or canons we quote. Without clairvoyant sight, we do not know. If we experience grace in a certain Church, then we can say we know it was there at the time we experienced it. But that's all we can know. We can see where the presence of grace is doubtful, where it should not be. And, places where it is doubtful, we should avoid and not be in communion with them.

Joanna Gets Tangled Up With Fruitless Debate



Matthew 22:15
Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk.




This "conversation" below was taken off the ROCOR Refugees Blog from the comments of a 12/29/08 post "Orthodox Facing the 1980's." Could this be the same guy that Dr. E.L. Magerovsky answered in the previous post? If it is not the same guy, then they do think alike. Dr. Magerovsky did a beautiful job in answering. Joanna just made a bigger mess of things, so Joanna is not going to allow herself to be tricked into any more debates.


Post a Comment On: ROCOR REFUGEES

"Orthodox Facing the 1980's"
22 Comments -

Anonymous said...
This part caught my attention:

". . . Metropolitan [Philaret] has warned other Orthodox Christians of the disastrous results of their ecumenical course if they continue; ** but at the same time our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement **, recognizing that it is still a tendency that has not yet come to its conclusion (the Unia with Rome) and that (at least in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and other churches behind the Iron Curtain) it is a political policy forced upon the Church by secular authorities."
January 1, 2009 7:15 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Yes, interesting. Especially since our prophets tell us there will be an eighth Council before the end, and Rome will repent. This is included on the "Prophecies For Russia" post last April on this blog.
January 2, 2009 2:45 PM


Anonymous said...
Given Fr. Seraphim's statement that points out "old ROCOR" refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement before unia with Rome, I am wondering if ROCOR-PSCA has considered seeking to re-establish some of those previous ties. Its communion with the Synod in Resistance was continued on those grounds so, to be consistant, it seems that such an effort would be equally desirable.
January 3, 2009 5:02 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
I don't see happening what it seems to me you are hoping for.

Fr. Seraphim was speaking from a time when the OCA had recently been given its self-governing status by the MP. Many parishes were still unsettled. Since that time the gap between World Orthodoxy and the Royal Path has widened. Since then the OCA has become more firm in ecumenism and almost all OCA parishes are now on the new calendar. Those "previous ties" you refer to are pretty old. We have to face reality.

This gap was widening before the ROCOR-MP union, so I expect it will continue to widen after the ROCOR-MP union.

If old ROCOR, prior to the ROCOR-MP union, was working to create ties with the OCA as it is (ie: without its renouncing ecumenism), then it was the part of ROCOR that went with the MP, and not the part that went with Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel.

Of course, it would be a cause for great joy if any ecumenical parish (or whole jurisdiction, if I may dream) decided to renounce ecumenism and all that leads to it, so that ROCOR-Agafangel and the Sister Churches could welcome them as one of the Royal Path Churches.

But for the good of all, if the ecumenical churches insist on flirting with ecumenism, we must maintain a distance. It does not mean we don't love them. It does not mean we do not consider them brothers. It does mean we must be divided, however sad that is.

We maintain a distance for our sake so we don't also fall into the same trap. And for their sakes, so we don't inadvertently encourage their ecumenism by appearing to condone or accept their flirtation.

ROCOR-Agafangel is the old ROCOR of St. Philaret of New York, Blessed Archbishop Averky, and the original Fr. Seraphim Rose, who all - with soft hearts and loving hearts - did not compromise the Truth. And the truth about ecumenism is that we should have no part in it. Neither should we support it, nor pretend that it is not the most devastating heresy of all times.

I'm not certain where your confusion comes from.

It's possible that maybe you have some close relatives in the ecumenical churches or something? That's just a guess. If that is the case, then you should lead your loved ones OUT of the ecumenical churches - and not wait on a vain (useless) hope that the anti-ecumenism churches will accept the ecumenical churches as is - (ie: with their ecumenism).
January 4, 2009 9:31 PM


Anonymous said...
"ROCOR-Agafangel is the old ROCOR of St. Philaret of New York, Blessed Archbishop Averky, and the original Fr. Seraphim Rose, who all - with soft hearts and loving hearts - did not compromise the Truth. And the truth about ecumenism is that we should have no part in it. Neither should we support it, nor pretend that it is not the most devastating heresy of all times." 


ROCOR was not in communion with the OCA when Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote that piece(see 1971 Sobor Resolution) so one cannot explain the statement at the top of the comments using the OCA. 

The million dollar question is exactly, "How was Old ROCOR able to be 'in communion' with those involved in ecumenism while at the same time (correctly) not supporting it and not compromising the Truth?"

These were Saintly people. How did they understand this matter?
January 5, 2009 7:31 AM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Not everything is black and white. Old ROCOR was officially not in communion with the ecumenical churches. But certain cases were left to the judgment of individual priests who might be willing to commune certain new calendar laymen. While this freedom could have been abused, there are also times when it surely was warranted. ROCOR clergy, though, did not concelebrate with OCA clergy.

The wording chosen by Fr. Seraphim ("refuse" and "communion") I see as being directed to an audience he saw before him (I picture laymen) and alluding to the pressure put on ROCOR by the super-correct. This was a speech and not a writing. Had Fr. Seraphim written this, he may have chosen other words.

So if you are not referring to the OCA, are you then referring to the Serbian Church? If so, then I believe the answer to your original question is "No." I do not see ROCOR-Agafangel having plans to restore old ties with the Serbian Church which is now officially part of World Orthodoxy.
January 5, 2009 8:37 AM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Another thought:

 You bring up something I see as significant. Neither the ecumenists nor the super-correct can dismiss the Royal Path. Not when we see the fruits (the saints) produced by this path.

(Although both the ecumenists and the super-correct have been claiming these saints were supportive of either the left or the right.)

According to the Prophecies of Russia there will be an 8th Council and all these disgusting heresies will be lanced and drained like the putrid infections that they are. I can HARDLY wait!
January 5, 2009 8:49 AM


Anonymous said...
"According to the Prophecies of Russia there will be an 8th Council and all these disgusting heresies will be lanced and drained like the putrid infections that they are. I can HARDLY wait!"



You also bring up something that is interesting. I agree with your enthusiasm. I share it, but have you considered WHO will most likely be seated at such an 8th Ecumenical Council, involved in making such a ground breaking decision? Probably the very jurisdictions you say there should be no communion with! The ones who have been dialoging with Rome for so many years including those they are 'in communion' with. 

In other words, if ROCOR-PSCA's current understanding of 'no communion' with the other ancient patriarchates lines up with what you are suggesting then ROCOR-PSCA will have NO voice at the prophesied 8th Ecumenical Council. Basically the very patriarchates you refuse to seek communion with (because of ecumenism) will have assembled together and been used as a tool for the repentance of Rome and her entry back into the Church. 

Perhaps because of the prophecy we both look forward to is why Old ROCOR had said, " . . . our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement. . ." 

Just thinking out loud since that section first caught my attention.
January 5, 2009 11:44 AM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
The way the prophecy is worded and from whose lips it comes makes it look like the heretical churches will not run the council, or even be invited. (Of course, they may have some fake councils of their own in the meantime. But fake councils are of no account. You can't lie your way into heaven:

"...2) Before the birth of the Antichrist an Eighth Ecumenical Council must be convened of all the Churches under the One Head, Christ and under the one Protecting Veil of the Mother of God [according to St. Nilus the myrrh-gusher: 'a last and eighth Ecumenical Council to deal with the disputes of heretics and separate the wheat from the chaff'. Its aim will be to unite and reunite all the holy Churches of Christ against the growing antichristian tendency under a single Head, Christ the Life-Giver, and under a single Protecting Veil of His Most Pure Mother, and to deliver to a final curse the whole of Masonry and all the parties similar to it (under whatever names they may appear), the leaders of whom have one common aim: under the pretext of complete egalitarian earthly prosperity, and with the aid of people who have been made fanatical by them, to create anarchy in all states and to destroy Christianity throughout the world, and, finally, by the power of gold concentrated in their hands, to subdue the whole world to antichristianity in the person of a single autocratic, God-fighting tsar - one king over the whole world..."
January 5, 2009 12:04 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
These were Saintly people. How did they understand this matter?



Very worthwhile question to ask ourselves. Here is some 1981 ROCOR history that aids in this understanding:

CLICK HERE

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/01/decision-of-synod-of-bishops-1981.html
January 5, 2009 9:08 PM


Anonymous said...
While the piece you posted does not answer the question, "How was Old ROCOR able to be 'in communion' with those involved in ecumenism while at the same time (correctly) not supporting it and not compromising the Truth?", excellent "decision" is very clear and definitive on the ROCOR position on the MP in the early 
80's. 

In relation to that piece what is the equally clear, definitive, official position of ROCOR-PSCA
on the MP almost 30 years later?

 Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?
January 8, 2009 2:52 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
So you liked the article about the 1981 Decision of the ROCOR synod. 

Now you ask...



Q: "In relation to that piece what is the equally clear, definitive, official position of ROCOR-PSCA
on the MP almost 30 years later?"



A: The same. Our policy is the same, but circumstances may have changed. The same policy is applied to new circumstances.

 If it were not the same, then ROCOR-PSCA (now ROCA-A) never would have formed in the first place. Instead Vladyka Agafangel would have just joined one of the R-splits. (by "R-splits" I mean like ROCIE, ROAC, RTOC, etc.)



Next you ask...



Q: Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?



A: Yikes! Let St. John have this one!

CLICK HERE

 http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-mp-sick-or-graceless.html
January 9, 2009 1:26 PM


Anonymous said...
Thanks again! 

You had linked that statement in response to my original question so it appears that you are saying that ROCOR-A is making the same argument about the MP today as St. John did in 1960. That ROCOR could not be administratively tied to MP because it is "against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself."

 Do I have this right?

 As I study the MP question in relation from the "various R-splits" as well as from ROCOR-MP, they all have very strait foward positions. I am hoping to get equally strait answers from ROCA-A on exactly how they view the MP today as I compare notes.
January 9, 2009 3:18 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
I wish you every success.



In his last will and testament, Metropolitan Anastassy has said:

"As for the Moscow Patriarchate and its bishops, archbishops and metropolitans, the Russian Church Abroad must not have any canonical, prayerful, or even simple everyday association."
http://www.monasterypress.com/bishopopinions.html



These old policies are still in effect, same old policies are applied to new circumstances. In the MP nothing has really changed except now it is behind a facade.
January 9, 2009 9:09 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
I wish you every success and I understand why you are looking for clearly stated stands. You say that the ROCOR-MP (world othodoxy) and the R-splits (super-correct) do have such clearly stated stands. And you hope to find a clearly stated stand from ROCA-A (royal path) as well.



Remember in Fr. Seraphim's article he says that both ecumenism and super-correctness are both worldly diseases. 

The Royal Path is other-worldly and produces saints. While some ROCA(A) clearly stated stands do exist, such as the "1981 Decision" that you liked, and our Anathama of Ecumenism; much of your understanding of our stand will not come by official decrees, but in less concrete ways.



We do not have one person you can go to and ask for a definite answer to everything. Our Synod consists of different men all with various opinions, but still of one mind even while holding different opinions. 

St. Philaret and St. John are an example of this phenomenon. St. John, as you read, tends to be of the opinion that the MP is "sick". St. Philaret, on the other hand, is known to have PRIVATELY revealed that he was of the opinion that the MP was without grace. (He held this opinion while refusing to make any official declaration).



So we see 2 different opinions. But they are not contradictory. Both St. John and St. Philaret said that they were "of one mind" or "like-minded" with each other. Both of them are revealed incorrupt in the same time frame - one on the east (coast of USA) and one on the west (coast of USA).



The ecumenists can not grasp this. Neither can the super-correct grasp this. If you sense that you are getting a grasp on this in any sense, then you belong in a Royal Path Church. In America that would be ROCA(A)or SIR.



ROCA and SIR are not always of the same opinion. But they are "of one mind". Because of the One Mind, we do not feel threatened to give each other "wiggle room" with opinions.



The super-correct do not enjoy the same security, cannot tolerate "wiggle room", so they end up chronically fragmented.



We are known by our fruits. 
None of the Super-Correct are in communion with each other.
 All of the Royal Path are in communion with each other.



The Super-Correct and the Royal Path have it in common that they are both non-ecumenical.


I can't think of anything the Royal Path has in common with World Orthodoxy.

I hope this helps.
January 9, 2009 10:26 PM


Anonymous said...
Yes, your comment helps. I found it clear on the reality that various opinions were/are able to co-exist. This is a valuable point you stress. 

One thing that I have found is that ROCOR established in its official and semi-official statements that the MP was a part of the Russian Church, even while waist deep in submission with the communists. I think Metropolitan Philaret's signature is on one of these statements. I find this to be very compassionate. 

Is it safe to say that this official position is still "official" in ROCA(A), especially in today's Russia?



I ask this because a good point was made by a ROCOR priest back in 2001 who used sarcasim in laying out a Russian reality that was inconvenient for a "super-correct" opponent at the time:



"Monasteries full of monks and nuns praying day and night, children learning
 the Law of God, processions of the Cross through city streets and across
expanses of field and wood, churches built, rebuilt and with services in
praise of God, baptisms, funerals, weddings and blessings of every kind,
icons in public places ... these are all tricks of the devil to confuse us,
these are the fruits of Satan and the antichrist before the end, don't be
 fooled. Tear down those churches, save those children from those books, put
 those monastic fakes into psych wards and outlaw those processions, God
 forbid someone should be taken in by such false shows of open religion! We
 will have none of that. "

Sarcastic, yes, but a good point.



On the backside of the official statements (that the MP is a "captive" part of the Russian Church) I also find many other official statements which state that the "various R" splits are OUTSIDE of the Church. 

Given the hard line often touted against ecumenism, etc by ROCA(A) (which is mirrored almost exactly by the splinters) this point is a bit puzzling, that the MP would be considered a part of the Church while those other splinters (who seemed to break away because a moving towards a communion with the MP) are actually claimed to be NOT a part of the Church. 

Is this official position also still in effect? On the surface at least is seems ROCA-A is almost 100% in line with the splinters on such major issues (ecumenism, WCC, etc). That these splinters are "not" in the Church while the MP "is" in the Church seems a tad odd. 

I am not expecting you to have all of the answers and I thank you for the pleasent postings (a rarity on these subjects!)
January 10, 2009 7:50 AM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
It is important not to confuse opinion with official statements. We will hear far more opinion than official statement.

 The terribly fragmented R-splits all agree that ROCA(A) should declare the ecumenical churches graceless. Our Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel says that ROCA(A) does not have the canonical right to make such a declaration. That this must be done by a Council. Metropolitan Philaret said the same thing. So no official statement is being issued. So, maybe you'd like to see our official opinion?



Our official opinion does not seem to address the issue of grace. All we say is: Ecumenism is heresy and we are not in communion with ecumenical churches. That SHOULD be all that needs to be said, for now. We have already said that we do not have the canonical right to make a declaration about grace. So why do we keep getting hounded (by the R-splits) to do something we've already said we don't have the right to do?



People say this and people say that, and opinions are not Truth (Fr. Seraphim disliked opinions, even his own). Metropolitan Vitaly said that people will SAY one thing, but for us to watch what they DO.

 ROCA(A) has not entered into communion with any of the R-splits. But ROCA(A) has opened her doors to all who will come and promises to use the maximum "economia" possible for all. Vladyka Agafangel was willing to accept RTOC completely "as is" with no re-ordinations.



Later, Bishop Tikhon Pasechnik was completely confused by this. The source of his confusion was from his relating everything back to the grace/graceless issue, even though "grace" was NEVER MENTIONED. 

He said (paraphrasing) he didn't understand us because we won't go into communion with him (which must mean we think he has no grace), but that we are willing to accept him "as is" (which must mean we must think he does have grace). So he was confused. Do we say he has grace or not? 



HEY, we didn't say anything about grace.



The action of ROCA(A) in this matter speaks louder about our "official" policy than any words could do. But to see what this action is saying, you have to be able to look passed the messy idea of grace/graceless, canonical/uncanonical, inside/outside the Church. (All these words seemed to be used interchangeably with no discrimination).



With Satan tripping people up with words and wordiness, and with the language barriers and faulty translations, it is all the more important to study actions. Only listen to what people say with half an ear.



***

You ask again about ROCA(A)'s relationship to the MP. I see two reasons why we can not be in communion with the MP. One is because it is still Stalin's Church. The second is that it is in World Orthodoxy. Take your pick, either one of those reasons will prevent our being able to be in communion with them.

***


That prophecy that the priest was talking about could be referring to these times. We know there will be a genuine flowering under a God-appointed Orthodox Tsar that will precede Antichrist. So probably this is the false flowering that precedes the genuine one.



It is just an opinion - but maybe certain individual faithful souls can still be saved amid the mockery. I'm reminded of the court jester who entertained his pagan king by staging a mock baptism and baptizing himself with a triple immersion in a tub of water.

 When he came out of the water he said, "Now I'm a Christian!" And the king roared with laughter. But the jester kept saying that he really was a Christian. Soon the king realized it was true, and had him beheaded.

 God can save amid mockeries.
January 10, 2009 10:33 AM


Anonymous said...
You correctly point out the need to separate opinion from official statement. I find this fact stated constantly when I read debates between "old ROCOR" and the "R-Splits". I notice the "splits" always do a reversal and quote the opinions over the official statements to argue their side. It seems ROCOR debating the "R-Splits" is itself a tradition! 



So the MP being "Stalin's Church" is opinion while ROCOR's "official position" is that the MP IS a part of the Church (1974 Epistle, etc.). This is what the evidence shows (even if it appears on the surface to be contradictory and confusing).



Here is a debate response I found between ROCOR and an "R-Split" from 2002 concerning an official 1974 statement from Met. Philaret on the Russian Church while researching this topic: 

"The (1974 All-Diasporan) Sobor produced an extremely important document, namely "The Epistle of the Third All-Diasporan Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the Orthodox Russian People in the Homeland."

 Now, it should be obvious to everyone that there can be no document that would clearly state the official position of the Church Abroad to the Church in Russia that would have more weight then of its official Epistle to the Russian People in the Homeland. If Metropolitan Philaret and the other Bishops of the Church Abroad and the clergy and the laity participating in the Sobor truly believed that the Moscow Patriarchate was a false church and devoid of grace, this Epistle to the Russian People in
 the Homeland would have been just the instrument to warn the Russian flock not to have anything to do with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

 But what, instead, do we read in this Epistle? 

"In their never-sleeping prayers for one another, in their love for the Lord Jesus, in their faithfulness to the ideal of the past and f u t u r e [original emphasis] Orthodox Russia (Rus') the faithful archpastors, pastors, monks and laymen on both sides of the Iron Curtain are one. Together they comprise the Holy Russian Church -- indivisible, as is indivisible the seamless shroud of Christ."

 And let no one think that the Sobor was talking only of the Catacomb Church in this context.

 The entire Epistle was a response to a Letter addressed to the 
All-Diasporan Sobor by the noted Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and it particularly addressed those issues that had been brought up by Solzhenitsyn-- specifically concerning the Church in Russia. . . 

The Catacomb Church, however, is mentioned in the another context, in a different part of the Epistle, where the Sobor states that after spiritual renewal of Russia and the freeing of the Church which events are yet to
come, "then the Moscow Patriarchate and the Catacomb Church and we, the Church Abroad will stand before the judgment of the local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church."

 This clearly indicates that all three parts of the Russian Church,
 explicitly including the Moscow Patriarchate, are equally subject to answer before a future All-Russian Council.

 This part of the Epistle reflects the previously stated position of the Church Abroad, proclaimed by Metropolitan Philaret in his own Epistle to the Russian flock, that these are the three parts of the Russian Church. He had written: "in addition to the Moscow Patriarchate and the Catacomb Church, there is a third part of the Russian Church, namely the Russian Church Abroad."

Metropolitan Philaret could easily have written the following: "In addition to the Catacomb Church and the Russian Church Abroad, which have preserved the Church both in Russia and abroad, there exists a third entity calling
itself the Russian Church, namely the Moscow Patriarchate, which is a
creation of the Stalinist regime and is totally the void of the grace."

But, that's not what he wrote.

Therefore, all those who are interested in understanding the true historical position of the Russian Church Abroad, should look carefully at the official Epistles of the Sobors over previous decades.

Only then will they see that the positions expressed by the Sobors of the Church Abroad in 2000 and 2001 in no way have strayed from the historical positions expressed by previous Sobors.

Let me repeat the words of the Epistle of the 1974 All-Diasporan Sobor once more, because they are so important:

 "In their never-sleeping prayers for one another, in their love for the Lord Jesus, in their faithfulness to the ideal of the past and f u t u r e [original emphasis] Orthodox Russia (Rus') the faithful archpastors, pastors, monks and laymen on both sides of the Iron Curtain are one. Together they comprise the Holy Russian Church -- indivisible, as is
indivisible the seamless shroud of Christ."

That was the position of the Church Abroad 28 years ago.

It is still the position of the Church Abroad today (in 2002). "

- Finish quote - 

So, given Met. Philaret's statement in 1974 to the Orthodox people in Russia, it is safe to say that ROCA-A officially carries on that same position today? Furthermore, if the MP is part of the Russian Church as Met. Philaret stated, then certainly one must assertain that the MP has grace as well. Of course they do. How could one be a part of the Church while at the same time be "graceless"? This is where the confusion comes in as well. If the opinion is the MP is "Stalin's Church" yet the official statement is that the MP is "part of the Russian Church", then for both statements to be true one must conclude that "Stalin's Church" is indeed part of the Russian Church.

Given this strange combination, I can see how the official statements should rightly be placed above opinion.

Moreover, one should note that Met. Philaret looked forward to a time when the MP, ROCOR and the Catacomb Church would meet together in a future All-Russian Council. 

Do you know if ROCA-A has any plans to initiate such a council?
January 10, 2009 1:01 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Honestly I don't have any problem with the Russian Orthodox Church also being Stalin's (now Putin's) Church. 

Maybe (and I HATE analogies) like if you stole something from me - it would still be mine even while it was in your possession. If it was something LIVING - such as my dog - then my dog would still bark the same bark, shed the same hairs, etc.. But none of my real friends are going to have doggie play dates with you and your stolen dog. But my dog's doggie friends don't know the difference.



I need to ask you what your purpose is for this research. I'm starting to wonder if you are not trying to "prove" something - if so what? You are acting and sounding like a lawyer digging through and interpreting (and misinterpreting) old cases. Your deductions/logic/calculations have a false ring. You build a tangled web.



You can "prove" that 2+2=5 with enough cleverness. 



If you are trying to prove something that is already true, then you are wasting your time. If you are trying to prove something true that is really false, then you are wasting my time.



Real answers are found in prayer.



***
It is my understanding that the 8th council will be called by the future promised God-appointed Orthodox Tzar.
January 10, 2009 2:26 PM


Anonymous said...
Pardon me, madam! 

You are being a bit rude and unfair here. I am not trying to cause you offense so I will disconnect after this. If I am reading this on your blog, I also thank you for being fair enough to let my post through. 

I have already explained to you the reason for my research. In fact, to this you said, "I wish you every success and I understand why you are looking for clearly stated stands." Also understand that I want to be absolutely positive that "Old ROCOR" is truly being represented here so I need to see how facts from the past (many of which you posted) are explained in light of what appear to be conflicting, current opinions. The ROCA-A websites and latest official statements are not very forthcoming and somewhat nebulus. So I want to make sure this IS the genuine article because that is the claim of every single jurisdiction not in communion with the ancient patriarchates in this day and age. Apparently you don't appreciate this and now the hostility I am reading here is really no different from any of the other groups who call each other "splinters" or "schismatic". 

You accuse me with, "Your deductions/logic/calculations have a false ring. You build a tangled web" but please look objectively at how this discussion is going. 

I first point out a statement by Fr. Seraphim Rose where he says, " . . . our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement . ." and later you reply, "Not everything is black and white. Old ROCOR was officially not in communion with the ecumenical churches." Do I believe you or Fr. Seraphim? What Fr. Seraphim Rose points out is true as ROCOR history from his time has shown. ROCOR was in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem and various bishops concelebrated with other jurisdictions as well. This is black and white. Either you are in communion or not and that understanding lines up with Fr. Seraphim Rose's statement. You scoff at such a communion today yet no Orthodox church is in communion with Rome as back then. Keep in mind Fr. Seraphim wrote his statement well after the Greeks lifted the 1054 anathema. 

I then ask you "Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?" and you say, "Yikes! Let St. John have this one!" and link to a statement of his from 1960 (almost 50 years ago!!) where he clearly explains in black and white terms why ROCOR could not be in communion with the MP. He had explained that, "against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself." You link this 50 year old statement when I ask about today only later to accuse me of "acting and sounding like a lawyer digging through and interpreting (and misinterpreting) old cases. " I am basically reading the links you gave me for the answers to my questions and providing other sources to support my conclusions in response. 

When I read this statement below concerning the MP, complete with + Agafangel's picture and signature, I wonder if all of those new "unofficial opinions" are not just individuals trying to make + Agafangel into their own image!



http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5enposlaniye.html



I wish you the same success you wish for me.



p.s. I asked: Moreover, one should note that Met. Philaret looked forward to a time when the MP, ROCOR and the Catacomb Church would meet together in a future All-Russian Council. 

Do you know if ROCA-A has any plans to initiate such a council?

You answered: It is my understanding that the 8th council will be called by the future promised God-appointed Orthodox Tzar.

I reply: At the risk of sounding to lawyerly, employing "false logic" or plain being calculating for you, I must point out that the 8th council is not the same as a future "All Russian Council" attended by ROCOR, MP and the Catacomb Church.
January 10, 2009 5:50 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Wow! You take offense quite easily I see. I sincerely apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I'll try to be less careless and more sensitive.



I wish you success, but you are not going to have any success if you approach this only horizontally.



If the only way you can think is horizontal, then only horizontal statements are going to make sense to you. And that's got to be why you have no trouble getting "clear" statements from the Ecumenical and from the Super-Correct. 

The genuineness of ROCA(A) can not be "figured" out. You can not "figure out" the saints with "logic" or "logical progression" of thought.



It is our job to try to understand the saints - and not their job to behave understandably. To understand the saints we have to transcend worldliness and tap into otherworldiness.



'MY WAYS ARE NOT YOUR WAYS AND MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS..."



I was trying to help you see things more vertically. Because you are so determined to have everything spelled out in black&white (yes, like a lawyer - no offense - just a description) I am inclined to want to withhold black&white statements from you to snap you out of this thinking and this approach. This very approach that Fr. Seraphim tells us does not work.



Every time I have given you the black&white statement that you have very insistently demanded, it has not quenched you - you just want more and more. I do not want to contribute to this - it is not helping you.



I am trying to help you. But maybe I am not able. Pray for the insight to see the unity, wisdom, love (not sentiment) in the seemingly contradictory things in ROCOR/ROCA(A). They are only contradictory to a black&white approach. They are not contradictions to me, as I've tried to explain.



I will pray for you, too.



***
For a MP/ROCA(A)/Catacomb Council we will have to wait for the Future God Appointed Tzar. Probably this will be taken care of at the 8th council.
January 11, 2009 2:03 PM


Joanna Higginbotham said...
Dear Anonymous,

This section of the blog is supposed to be used for comments. 
And this has turned into a "conversation." 
If you still wish to continue this conversation, please email me.


Later, I will probably transfer this conversation to the Cyprianism Blog. Because, after looking over this conversation, I feel it could be of more interest to those trying to understand Cyprianism.


Love,
 Joanna
January 11, 2009 5:07 PM


This Anonymous Poster never emailed me. Looking back over the "conversation" it appears to me that Anonymous just wanted to have a debate. Live and learn... Because of this debater, I added two new rules to the Guidelines For Comments on the ROCOR Refugees blog:
√ Comments section is not an appropriate venue for debates.

√ Antagonistc posters will not be extended the same rights and freedoms as friends. It's not about "fairness" - it's about what is helpful for ROCOR Refugees.

Another thing, in hindsight, I see something I overlooked in the very beginning. The quote first in question could be boiled down to, "...refuse to cut off ALL communion..." Maybe if I had pointed this out in the beginning of the conversation, things would have gone differently. If our bishops refuse to cut off ALL communion that means they retain SOME communion. Maybe that concept could have helped Anonymous get a grasp on the Royal Path where the answer can rightly be yes and no. -jh

Dr. E.L. Magerovsky Untangles Super-Correct Thinking

Thursday, December 18th, 2008
1:51 pm
№157: A long but interesting discussion of the various questions, evidently troubling some...
RESPONSE TO BLOG:

UNKNOWN WRITER ASKS ACCUSATORY QUESTIONS:

Dr. Magerovsky,

There is one issue that continues to trouble me. We both agree that Vladika Laurus took part of ROCOR into schism. Now, before Vladika Laurus, the Synod of Bishops had Metropolitan Vitaly as the helm of the ROCOR. Did Metropolitan Vitaly preside over any false councils? If the answer is no, then what about the Council of 1990, which specifically said that the two bishops that Vladika Agafangel accepted through chirotesia, can only be accepted through ordination (thus, NOT finding their ordinations actual)? How can this contradiction happen?

We know that canons can use ikonomia in some instances, where love is infused into the words of the Church’s laws to assuage and withhold the fullness of the law, for Truth’s sake. Now, if you can, please answer me this. Can a handful of bishops change any decisions of a Council of bishops, if we agree that the Council was not a false one? If the answer is yes, then please show me, where in Church history this has taken place. 

Lastly, the God’s Church on earth is made up of bishops, clergy and the laypeople. Sobornost is when there is a unity in Truth between all three components. The bishops, are the head. I don’t disagree with this. But, the head needs the body to move and for anything to happen. Likewise, the bishops cannot forget that they have a flock that they must guide and always shepherd towards salvation. Also, the flock needs to have trust in the shepherd. IF there is no trust, then no matter how well intentioned a shepherd is, he will not succeed without this trust. 
 


Now, I have said all this about trust in the shepherd because of what Vladika Agafangel has been doing and saying and allowing to be said. In May of 2007. he was the only bishop in ROCOR who did not join with the MP. I would say his trust factor went up in the eyes of those who didn’t wish to follow Vladika Lavr into the ready hands of Putin, Alexei 2 and the FSB.

Later on, Vladika Agafangel says that his goal is not to search for union between the various splinters of ROCOR (like the Tihonovtsi and Vitalievtsi). Then, he says nothing when challenged about Father Viktor Dobrov saying that "We will not look at the past resolutions of ROCOR as some kind of "sacred cows". If we have to change, rewrite or entirely omit some issue from past resolutions of ROCOR, we will do so." (Remember, a secretary of a Okrug doesn’t have a personal opinion...when he writes on the internet, everyone knows who he is and his word is weighed more than that of others). Thus, one can only interpret that Vladika Agafangel agrees with these sentiments! (please show me otherwise)
 
All these contradictions lead one to suppose many things. I earlier spoke of trust for the shepherd from his flock. How, pray tell, after watching a bishop in the face of Laurus, lead many of the flock astray (and we knew him and trusted him), how are we supposed to follow a bishop, that we in the abroad parishes barely know, who constantly contradicts himself?



DR. E L MAGEROVSKY'S REPLY:
elmager 2008-12-16 01:46 pm (local) (от 68.197.15.140) (ссылка)



I have the following to say to your very reasoned question. First of all, the Church is a living human organism, created and administered by people, not "saints", who are known to make mistakes. Therefore nothing ever is firmly stated as the absolute truth. We always have to qualify our actions as something "that appears to us as the truth, but we don't know for sure", otherwise we are simply not honest with ourselves. For some, that is taken for granted, for others--happily ignored. And those who insist that some Church actions are correct--come hell or high water--as stated by the enactors, are paying attention only to one half of the human dilemma.

The Church Fathers have met this problem head-on and provided for the ability to correct an error in their various organizational schemes. I think you see where I am driving. Whether it is the Sobor or the PSECA, there are provisions to be able to alter or modify or even abruptly change and abolish enactments of the previous like Councils or Authorities. That is a "sine quam non".
 


Specifically to your point, the 1990 Finding of the Council of Bishops or ROCOR, acting on what we know now as insufficient or even erroneous data, supplied by Bp.Lazar, an interested party to the dispute, stated that "correctness of the consecration or ordination of bishops in question needs to be established before any further decision on them is made". This was later misinterpreted by the Lazar group as an announcement of the impossibility to enter into communion with them. This is what is known to me of the affair.

So to your question, "can properly consecrated canonic bishops change rules or positions made earlier by other like bishops?" The answer unequivocally is yes, they can, provided they occupy the same or like position in the administration of the Church. And in this case, they certainly did.
 


As to your question about "false councils presided over by Vlad. Vitaly," I find it--forgive me--a little bit childish. Don't you remember his age in 1990 or later? By all reports even then, he had some periods of lucidity, while others were totally erased from his memory. He also constantly was under great strain and incessant pressure of the pro-MP clique in the very Synod he was presiding over. Can you reasonably expect him constantly to remain perfectly lucid even then, at all times?
 


You raised also a very good point concerning trust. Trust is the mortar that holds the entire Church edifice together. It actually should have been raised by you first. Because without trust you cannot have a "church", you can have a motley of like-minded individuals but not a Church. Therefore, when such doubts as you have expressed even arise, it is an indication that something is not right in this edifice. For they indicate an inherent distrust of those authorities who have to be trusted "ab initio", before you even start the worship. And that is what I find sorely lacking.
 


I am sorry I have to end approximately half-way through your very good and reasoned series of excellent questions. I wish there was someone to whom I could direct you for the rest of the replies. I'm not a clergyman, just a 74 year person who has seen his share of human misery. Look into this position on my site, perhaps I'll be able to return and finish what I've started.
_________________________________________________________(Continuation)

Tell me, why are you so concerned about the acceptance of these two bishops? What, besides putting a square peg into a square hole and a round one into a round one, concerns you so? They will continue to serve their distant parishes and have little or no connections with any of us. Or is it you, who are apparently uncomfortable if something is not demonstrated to you as absolutely correct?

Let us assume for a moment that our bishops committed an error with those two. How does it affect our worship? Have they lost something? They have only committed a very human mistake, such as they will probably commit many times over again--because it's very human to commit errors. Judging by what I know, they haven't, but what was the crime if they did, not maliciously, but unknowingly? Because of this, suddenly our merciful God becomes a punishing Jehova? No, the problem is definitely not with the bishops, but with their detractors who see only punishments for their mistakes and not merciful acceptance of their mistakes by their would-be fellow beings. I find this attitude as all wrong. Luckily, it concerned only 3 people out of 46. Our Church law is mitigated by Church mercy because we all are human. And those who do not believe so, do not belong in our Church. They are there by mistake.

Generally speaking, you’ll agree that events that befell the Russian Church in years 1917 to the present, cannot be said as being "normal". Therefore, some allowances have to be made, and you have to account for the real conditions that existed then. In the abnormal conditions that it has operated from, say, 1918 on, there could be no regular issuance of various letters of credence customarily given to its clergy members. The "catacomb" conditions and the real risk of death prevented that. There are countless writers attesting to that, both in Russian and English. So to demand strict observance of various rules extant in "normal" times is both unwise and unreal. Therein lies, I think, the crux of the matter. For some reason, the "alleged opponents" of the bishops in question, as well as the 1990 Synod of ROCOR, have very conveniently forgotten about that.

As far as chirotonia and chirotesia are concerned, what I have been taught in school is that chirotonia is the full rite of consecration (in case of a bishop, performed by two or more bishops), and chirotesia is the rite performed when it is impossible to determine whether the previous chirotonia (which apparently is obligatory) was properly done. Therefore, obviously, since they performed a chirotesia, they apparently had indications that some form of chirotonia was performed. But, ironically, all that is the province of bishops who are solely responsible for all consecrations AND DEFINITELY NOT THE LOWLY CLERGY OR LAYMEN. They play in it no role and, if they interfere with such matters, are interfering not lawfully and not in their own business. THAT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER.

As to your question of where actually reversals of church policy have taken place I, not being a historian of the church, cannot state, but what I can do is to surmise that if no prohibitions of such practices are clearly stated in church documents, they are, in fact, accepted. Also, since provisions in the statutes of various church bodies are frequently made for change and/or abolition of many outdated practices, such—apparently—is the customary behavior of the Church.

I do not quite understand your not understanding of two quite separate but very logical positions of Vlad. Agafangel. The first one was that we cannot possibly seek direct and immediate union between us and the various uncanonical "splinter groups" that emerged from ROCOR’s betrayal of its traditions and its eventual merger with the MP. Because virtually all of these groups appeared as raskoly or canonically illegal splintering-off of regular church entities. There are ways, some of them—quite involved, in which this can be done, but they are apparently not much to the liking of many of these groups.

The second was a general statement that we will not make "sacred cows" (a Hindu expression) out of outdated or erroneous positions of our predecessor, the former Synod of ROCOR. One position does not have any connection with the other, and is based on my previous extensive discussion. There is beautiful proverb in Russian: "the berries grow in my garden, and I’ve got an uncle living in Kiev". In other words, one has nothing to do with the other and there’s simply no connection between the two.

I also surmise that Fr. Victor’s positions are in agreement with Vlad. Agathangel’s, and if they are not, the latter will so signify. I, frankly, find no contradiction between them. And also, by becoming the diocesan Secretary, Fr. Victor did not renounce any of his personal rights or positions. As presumably an American, you should know that whatever is written under his signature and without the heading or logo of the Diocese is his personal opinion and is solely his, and what’s on its letterhead or bears its logo—is his position as the Secretary. I trust that is also self-evident. Well, I think I’ve tried to answer most of your questions.

"Decision" of the Synod of Bishops 1981

"Decision" of the Synod of Bishops 1981

Editor's Note: The following "Decision'' of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is in response to protests concerning an article sent by Metropolitan Philaret and printed in "The Orthodox Word" (P96, 1981) about a Russian priest-monk, Archimandrite Tavrion (+1978), who left the Catacomb Church of Russia for the official state-controlled Church in order to give spiritual direction to many who otherwise might have been without help, while at the same time in no way condoning the betrayal of the Church by the Moscow Patriarchate. A few readers of that article, acting under the false assumption that the Church Abroad regards the Moscow Patriarchate as totally fallen away from Orthodoxy and as "without grace", mistakenly presumed that it represented a change in the attitude of our bishops towards the Moscow Patriarchate, and protested this in articles , letters, sermons, and petitions.

The “Decision" printed below in full, represents an important clarification and restatement of the traditional position of the Russian Church Outside Russia. Footnotes have been added to assist the reader in understanding the historical background of the subject. The first four paragraphs of the ''Decision' are the report to the Synod by the presiding bishop, Metropolitan Philaret, while the remaining section is the "Resolution" of the Synod on this matter. The ''Decision" is being printed here. at the request of our Archbishop Anthony of Western America and San Francisco.


On 12/25 August, 1981, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia heard the report of the President of the Synod of Bishops on the following matter: the appearance of an article about Archimandrite Tavrion published in issue number 96 of The Orthodox Word has caused great consternation among some readers , especially those who are not very familiar with the conditions of church life in the USSR. In my covering letter to the editor of the magazine (which was not intended to be published with the article), they saw what they believed to be a kind of approval of the dual position taken by the late archimandrite rather than the simple forwarding of some interesting, informative material.

Archimandrite Tavrion , after long years of imprisonment as a member of the Catacomb Church, somehow came to join the Moscow Patriarchate while never sharing its policies . None of us has ever had any relations with him. We only know that he advised those of his spiritual children leaving the USSR and going West to join the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, It is also known that when talking to his spiritual children, he condemned the political subservience of the Patriarchate to the atheistic authorities. His pastoral and spiritual methods were rather unusual. In the favorable description of his life written by his spiritual daughter, some readers found not only the fact that he brought people into the Church, but they also suspected us of approving his compromising attitude toward the Church, This is not true.

The condemnation by our hierarchy of the agreement with the atheists promulgated by the Moscow Patriarchate at the time of Metropolitan Sergius certainly remains in effect and cannot be changed except by the repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate.[1] This policy, which seeks to serve both Christ and Belial, is unquestionably a betrayal of Orthodoxy. Therefore, we can have no liturgical communion with any bishop or cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate. But this does not prevent us from studying with love and sorrow the religious life in Russia. In some cases we see a complete collapse while in others we see some efforts to remain outside the apostate policies of the Patriarchate's leaders in an attempt to attain salvation even in the territory of Antichrist's kingdom (as in the case mentioned in Canon I I of St. Athanasius), and bearing in mind the words of our Saviour that by a hasty judgement one might root up the wheat along with the tares (Mt. 13:29)) [2]. Under varying circumstances, the venom of sinful compromise poisons the soul in varying degrees.

As the free part of the Russian Church, we can fully approve only that part of the Church in Russia which is called the Catacomb Church, and only with her can we have full communion.[3] Yet any departure from atheism and "Sergianism" must be seen as a positive. step towards pure Orthodoxy even though it not yet be the opening of the way to ecclesiastical union with us. Beyond this, our present evaluation and judgement cannot proceed, due to lack of information. However, our interest in all aspects of religious life in Russia cannot ignore any positive event we see against the background of total apostasy. We should not focus our attention exclusively on those facts which merit unconditional condemnation.

In light of this, the life and activity of the late Archimandrite Tavrion was an interesting phenomenon. And for this reason, I found his biography worthy of attention and publication certainly disapproving his membership in the Sergian church organization. This was apparently misunderstood by some readers: I was not offering his example as worthy of imitation.

Resolved: To take into consideration the report of the President of the Synod of Bishops and, sharing his opinion, to publish his account in the religious press. At the same time, the Synod of Bishops deems it necessary to remind its flock that first of all, we must strongly uphold our own faith and exercise our zeal in the authentic fire of the Church under the conditions in which God has placed each one of us, striving towards the salvation of our souls. Due to insufficient information, deliberations about the significance and quality of various events in Russia do not at present provide adequate guidance for the faithful. Indeed, in the majority of cases these deliberations cannot serve as instruction but must rather be regarded as personal opinions.

The Synod of Bishops is grieved by the reaction to the article about Archimandrite Tavrion and the hasty conclusions which some zealous believers, and even some clergymen, have drawn. Mutual love and concern for Church unity, which is especially necessary in times of heresy and schism, require from each of us great caution in what we say. If no one is supposed to condemn his neighbor in haste, even more care is demanded where our own primate is concerned. Rash implications about his allegedly unorthodox preaching as well as open criticism in sermons reveal a tendency towards condemnation and division which is unseemly in Christians. The Apostle said, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” How much more appropriate might it be to say, “Who art thou that judgest thy metropolitan?” Such an attitude, which can easily develop into schism, is strongly censured by the canons of the Church, for it shows willful appropriation by clerics of the “judgement belonging to metropolitans” (Canon XIII of the First-and-Second Council).[4] Everyone must be very careful in his criticism, particularly when expressing it publicly, remembering that “Judgement and justice take hold on thee” (Job 36:17). If, contrary to the apostolic teaching about heirarchical distribution of duties and responsibilities, all the clerics and laymen were to supervise their hierarchs (I Cor. 12:28-30), then instead of being a hierarchical Body of Christ, our Church would turn into a kind of democratic anarchy where the sheep assume the function of the shepherd. A special grace is bestowed upon bishops to help them in their work. Those who seek to control their bishop should be reminded of Canon LXIV of the Sixth Ecumenical Council which quotes the words of St. Gregory the Theologian:

Learning in docility and abounding in cheerfulness, and ministering with alacrity, we shall not all be the tongue which is the more active member, not all of us apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret and again: ?Why dost thou make thyself a shepherd when thou art a sheep? Why become a head when thou art a foot? Why dost thou try to be a commander when thou art enrolled in the number of the soldiers?

The canon ends with the following words:
“But if anyone be found weakening the present canon, he is to be cut off for 40 days."


The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately. If the position of the Catacomb Church would change relative to its position in past years, any change in our attitude would have td be re- viewed not by individual clergymen or laymen but only by the Council of Bishops, to which all pertinent matters should be submitted.

The above decision must be published and a copy of it forwarded to the Secretariat of the Council while the diocesan bishops should give instructions, each in his own diocese, to the clerics who have too hastily voiced their opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1. In 1926 Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhni- Nevgorod became the guardian of the Patriarchal throne in Moscow (the Soviets at that time not allowing the election of a successor to Blessed Patriarch Tikhon, who reposed in 1925). The following year, after a 3+ month imprisonment, Sergius issued the infamous "Declaration" of Compromise with the Soviet state, which amounted to a complete submission. He also demanded from all Russian clergy in exile ''a written promise of their complete loyalty to the Soviet government” under the penalty of expulsion from the ranks of the clergy. Such an action was clearly anti- canonical and without force, and is called today the policy of "Sergianfsm." The Majority of bishops and clergy outside Russia refused to accept this demand and continued to follow the directions given by Patriarch Tikhon for just such an exigency. According to Ukase #362, issued in November, 1920, the last freely-elected Patriarch of Moscow ordered that Russian Orthodox Christians in exile must form their own independent Church government in the event that contact with the Patriarch was broken or the Patriarchate "cease its activity." Since this happened almost immediately, the Russian bishops in freedom quickly formed an exile Church government, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which still exists today and speaks out freely and boldly on behalf of those who cannot in the USSR.
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls. (Heb. 13:17)

2. St. Athanasius the Great was a Holy Father of the 4th century. He attended the First Ecumenical Council and was a valiant champion against the Arians. His three Canonical Epistles were confirmed by the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Councils of the Church. The second of these Epistles refers to those clergy who, out of weakness, submitted to pressure and even force from the Arian civil government of the time and joined the Arian heresy, excusing their action on the grounds that they did not want to see the laity given over completely to spiritual destruction under Arianism. Later, many returned to Orthodoxy in repentance; the question naturally arose as to how they should be treated. St. Athanasius said that while their submission to error could not be condoned or imitated, if they had joined the Arians involuntarily they should be pardoned and permitted to continue to serve as priests.

3. Because the Moscow Patriarchate has violated numerous canons by her official submission to an atheist state, the Russian Church Abroad has no communion with her in order to be a witness to the rest of Orthodoxy and the world, drawing attention to the fact that the Russian Mother Church lies in bonds and fetters, utterly unable to function freely. This, however, does not mean that the Church Abroad believes the Moscow Patriarchate to be without grace, as some have mistakenly deduced; she leaves a final judgement on the whole Russian Church situation to a future free Russian Church Council, such as can only be convoked after the fall of communism. In 1945, Metropolitan Anastassy wrote to the Russian people in exile:
“Those who are in submission to the jurisdiction of the Council of Bishops and Synod Abroad never regarded nor do they reqard themselves as being outside the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church, for they have never broken canonical, prayerful, and spiritual unity with the Mother Church.., We never cease to thank God that He destined us to remain us the free part of the Russian Church. It is our duty to guard this freedom until such time when we shall return to the Mother Church that precious pledge entrusted to us by her."

In this same spirit, 30 years later the bishops of the whole Russian Church Abroad in their Council addressed an Epistle "To the Russian People in the Homeland":

Although we, in accordance with the testament of the ever-memorable, Most Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy, have no communion with the Soviet Patriarchate, we have never broken off with the Russian Church, our Mother Church. Therefore, the needs of the Russian Church are our needs, and the needs of our brethren who live under the heavy yoke of the God-hating regime are our needs.
4. The First-and-Second Council was called at Constantinople in 861 and attended by 318 Church Fathers. Canon XIII deals with the good order of the Church and says in part:
"If any priest or deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers. ..he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office., . For any (priest) who forestalls the Metropolitan's judgement (and) condemns his own father and Bishop is not even worthy of the honor or name of Priest."

source: Orthodox America