Royal Path ism

In Defense of Fr. Dimitry

2011-11-13T21:44:00.002-06:00

In Defense of Fr. Dimitry was written by Fr. Seraphim in 1980 just after Fr. Dimitry Dudko was forced by the KGB to make a public pseudo-confession. In this writing, Fr. Seraphim directly addresses issues of today, such as how Roca should consider the MP, what are the exact places of the jurisdictions on the "map," Russia's role in our spiritual present and future. And with this being written shortly before his death, again we see that Fr. Seraphim was a loyal son of Rocor to his death and in no way "softening" towards the idea of joining world Orthodoxy. Neither did he shed any "bitterness" – which he never had in the first place – that's only in some people's imaginations... The great value to us, in this writing, is that we see Fr. Seraphim's Royal Path thinking applied to a real-life example. We see that Royal Path thinking can only come forth from a "believing heart."

Taken from The Orthodox Word, #92, May-June 1980:

http://remnantrocor.blogspot.com/2011/11/father-dmitri-dudko.html

Regarding Roac's condemnation of Cyprianism

2011-11-13T21:07:00.000-06:00

Bishop George wrote a defense of the Sir Metropolitan Cyprian which is posted on his website and can be read through the Google translator. It is just too rough to repost here, but the last paragraph does manage to break through to our understanding:

... And the Lord himself, opening before us a picture of our current and soon to m i ph coming late, mysteriously confirms the teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian of healthy and sick members of the Church, through the mystery of the seven stars (Rev. 1.20) Indeed, on an equal footing with their God ugodidvshimi chitotoy Smyrna and Philadelphia Church, the Church-the same (Rev. 2, 3) refers to the Lord and the other five infected with heresies, false teachings and vices. "He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches!" (Rev. 3-22)

Consideration of the report of Bishop Andrew's Cathedral ROAC Pawlowski led us to the fundamental belief that the doctrine of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili and Oroposa Orthodox and, although different from the traditional ecclesiology of the Church Abroad, is not it a contradiction.

Condemnation of the cathedral ROAC teachings of Metropolitan Cyprian and share this teaching is wrong, because canonically unfounded.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fslovestnik.ru.gg%2F

Two Battles in the War

2011-05-13T12:51:00.001-05:00

Satan has two battles going in his war against God. He battles against the Church, and he battles against our individual souls. It is necessary for us to fight both battles. If we only fight the battle against the Church, then we get the super-correct disease which is characterized by hard-heartedness. If we only fight the battle against our souls, then we get the world-orthodoxy disease which is characterized by sentimentality.

Attending to both these battles is necessary for our salvation. The exercise we get in one battle strengthens us for victory in the other battle. This is because we are individuals with individual souls, and we are also [members of] a body, i.e. the Church. We will not make spiritual progress without attending to both battles.

In practice what this means is that if we pay great attention to our personal sins [judging, gossip, gluttony, etc.] while ignoring the fact that our Church is in the W.C.C.; then we are not attending to Satan's battle against the Church. And, conversely, if we steadfastly support our Church in keeping the laws [spiritual purity, canons, fasts, etc.], but go home and abuse our wives; then we are not attending to Satan's battle against our soul.

Proper attention to both battles is walking the Royal Path.

Russia's Catacomb Saints: Chapter 15

2011-03-23T22:15:00.005-05:00

The Conclusion at the bottom was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose where he explains the Royal Path in connection with Metropolitan Cyril's Epistles

Russia's Catacomb Saints

Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan

THE FIRST LOCUM TENENS OF PATRIARCH TIKHON

Commemorated January 26 (†1937?)

The Lord preserved for his chosen people a bishop who

did not agree to yield his faith for the sake of peace with

the enemies of Christ's Church. May his name be blessed

from generation to generation.

Sergei Nilus

Before his death Patriarch Tikhon left a document concerning his temporary successor, the Locum Tenens, who was to occupy the Patriarchal Throne until a new Patriarch could be freely elected for Russia. The Communist program which was being imposed upon much-suffering Holy Russia, and which was not actually atheistic but rather anti-theistic, had already made it extremely unlikely that such a free election could be held. In his choice of three successor hierarchs, the Martyr-Patriarch indicated the path for the Church to follow: these men were above all noted for their strict Orthodoxy of faith and boldness in confessing it, qualities which prepared them to become great confessors such as the Church had in the early catacomb times. The first of these pillars of firmness in unadulterated Orthodoxy was Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, a towering figure in the Russian Church and an inspirer of the Catacomb Church.

Born Constantine Smirnov on April 26, 1863, he graduated from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in 1887. After marriage he was ordained priest, but soon he became a widower and was tonsured a monk and appointed head of an Orthodox Mission in Urmia. In 1904 he was consecrated Bishop of Gdov, a vicar of the Petersburg diocese, where he became spiritually very close to the great luminary of the 20th century, St. John of Kronstadt. The holy pastor was greatly attached to the young hierarch, and in his last will St. John asked that his funeral be served and that he be buried by none other than the young Bishop Cyril. When Saint John died in 1908, Bishop Cyril fulfilled this request with great love and care, placing the body in the coffin and being the chief celebrant in the funeral services that followed, even though there were many elder hierarchs present. St. John had known well and had greatly respected the high spiritual caliber of Bishop Cyril.

During the celebration of Theophany in Petersburg in 1909 Bishop Cyril revealed himself as an outstanding fighter for church truth and tradition. Under the influence of worldly "scientific" elements it was officially decreed that all water which was to be blessed for the feast in the Petersburg diocese must be boiled beforehand, and thus the great Agiasma had to be performed over steaming pots. One outspoken church organ of the time noted that: "More faith was shown in the firewood necessary to boil the water and kill the germs, than in God. Fortunately, however, not everyone stepped away from the anchor of our salvation, and in the same Petersburg the Lord preserved for his chosen ones a single bishop who did not agree to yield his faith for the sake of peace with the enemies of Christ's Church. If these notes ever see the light of print, let them preserve the name of this loyal servant of God and archpastor, for the strrengthening of faith and piety in my overburdened brethren. Cyril of Gdov is the name of this bishop. May his name be blessed from generation to generation." Defying the warnings of the police, Bishop Cyril blessed the water of the Neva River at the St. Alexander Nevsky Lavra right through a hole in the ice. The local police, however, took measures to ensure that no one was allowed to take water from the "Jordan."

In the same year of 1909, apparently in connection with this incident, Bishop Cyril was transferred to the diocese of Tambov. Here he was entirely responsible for the preparations for the canonization of St. Pitirim of Tambov, which occurred in 1914 with great solemnity in his cathedral. After this he became an archbishop.

At the time of the Revolution he was one of the leading hierarchs of the entire Russian Church, taking an important part in the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918. His report to this Council on "Public Education," which he prepared after dealing with the Provisional Government and talking to Kerensky himself, revealed the true anti-Christian plans of those who had overthrown the Tsar and hoped to raise future generations without the Church's influence.

When appointed Metropolitan of Kazan he was immediately arrested (in 1919), so that he reached his See only after serving a sentence in prison in 1920. After several months in Kazan he was arrested again for his involvement with the American Relief Organization which supplied food to those who were starving due to the famine caused by the Revolution. In this work Metropolitan Cyril had many devoted helpers, one of whom the late Abbess Juliana (whose particular duty was to supply food and help to imprisoned bishops), has left an account which illuminates the catacomb circumstances under which the true archpastors of Christ had to tend their flock at this time:

"In about 1919 Bishop Gurias was arrested; he was pro-rector (of the Academy) in Kazan when Metropolitan Cyril was rector. Therefore the Metropolitan (who was in Moscow) called me in connection with sending some things to Vladika Gurias. As it turned out, he had agreed with him beforehand as to how the Holy Gifts were to be sent to him in prison. For this he gave me a little box with what seemed to be small white pieces of bread, and he said that these should be registered among the other supplies which were to be given. I was upset at taking the Holy Gifts with me, and in general at the idea of carrying them at all, and I told this to Vladika. To this he answered me: 'What business is that of yours; I am sending you.' But having thought a litttle, he offered me to take the Holy Gifts from him early in the morning on the same day when I would be going with the packages for Vladika Gurias in the Butyrka prison. This was done.

Soon I was going with packages for Vladika Cyril himself, but not for long. In 1920 Metropolitan Cyril was in the Taganka prison. In the same prison at that time, perhaps even in the same cell, were Vladikas Theodore and Gurias. In the Taganka prison the old rules were still in effect: for good behavior prisoners were called or went over to the category of the 'reformed,' and they enjoyed certain privileges. In the Taganka prison there were five prisoners in this category: Metropolitan Cyril, Archbishop Theodore, Bishop Gurias, Alex, Dim. Samarin, and Vladimir Theodorovich Djunkovsky. Besides the usual general visits, they were allowed once a week on a certain day to have visitors with the grating lifted. Usually, at the general visits, when many people were speaking with the prisoners through a double grating, it was almost impossible to converse because of the noise and shouting. Besides that, these meetings lasted only five minutes. On the other hand, visits to the 'reformed' lasted for fifteen minutes, and one could even give things right into the hands of the prisoners. Under these circumstances I had to speak with and give things to Metropolitan Cyril many times. When the Metropolitan was in exile we were able to help him not only with parcels but also by furnishing church service books."

At one time, when Metropolitan Cyril was banished to Turokansk, he lived with Archbishop Athanasius Sakharov in whose biography we find some information on the sufferings of Metropolitan Cyril.

During their common exile, the two archpastors used to pray together. Once, when Bishop Athanasius was placed in solitary confinement and was in great difficulty, Metropolitan Cyril began to pray for him using the prayer rule of the righteous Partheny of Kiev and consecutively reading the Gospels. Suddenly Bishop Athanasius was released. His confinement has been so short that Metropolitan Cyril had not yet finished reading the Gospel of St. John - this they finished reading together.

Bishop Athanasius cherished for the rest of his life the best and the fondest memories of Metropolitan Cyril. He loved to tell stories about him among which were the following: "In 1924, while Patriarch Tikhon was still alive, Vladika Cyril was returning from exile in the Ziryansk region. He had been summoned to Moscow to appear before the Soviet minister of cults, Eugene Tutchkov, with explicit instructions not to visit anyone on the way. Nevertheless, when Metropolitan Cyril reached Moscow, he went first of all to the Patriarch who had just signed an agreement accepting into communion the Renovationist Krasnitsky. When Metropolitan Cyril asked the reason for his having agreed to such an unorthodox action, Patriarch Tikhon said to him: 'I'm sick at heart that so many archpastors are imprisoned. The authorities promise me to free them if I accept Krasnitsky.'

To this Metropolitan Cyril replied: 'Your Holiness, do not worry about us archpastors. Our only use is in the prisons now.'

"On hearing this, the Patriarch crossed out Krasnitsky's name from the recently signed document. Later, in Metropolitan Cyril's meeting with Tutchkov, when the subject of Krasnitsky was discussed, Tutchkov insolently reproached him for not listening to the Patriarch who wanted to accept Krasnitsky. 'I do not understand you,' said Vladika Cyril. 'Exactly a year ago, on this very spot, you accused me of excessive obedience to the Patriarch, and now you demand just the opposite.'"

After the death of the Patriarch, there was no possibility of lawfully convening the Sobor (Council) in order to elect a new Patriarch: most of the hierarchs were in prison or in exile. Besides, it was hardly likely that Tutchkov would have allowed them to call a council in any case. Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), who was at that time in the Solovki concentration camp, proposed to bring about the election of a new Patriarch by collecting signatures of various archbishops. Together with bishops of like mind who were also in Solovki, he wrote an appeal on this subject to the bishops of the Russian Church. In this appeal he recommended that Vladika Cyril be elected Patriarch. One bishop who was about to be released from Solovki, put this appeal in his suitcase which had a false bottom, and thus it was smuggled out of the camp.

Quite a large number of signatures had been collected in favor of Metropolitan Cyril's candidacy. But hardly had this Solovki appeal reached the hands of Metropolitan Sergius, than it became known to the authorities and was immediately suppressed. Those bishops whose signatures appeared on the appeal, paid for it with an increase in their suffering. The initiator of the appeal likewise did not go unpunished. Still sick and barely standing on his feet after a bout with typhus, Archbishop Hilarion was sent under convoy to Leningrad in the fierce cold with only one thin rasson. Having reached his destination, he soon died.

Before Metropolitan Sergius became the "Locum Tenens," Tutchkov offered his position to those heirarchs chosen by Patriarch Tikhon to be his successors, that is, to Metropolitans Agathangelos and Cyril. It was reported that Metropolitan Agathangelos had been forbidden to accept this position by a blessed fool-for-Christ whom he greatly revered, the blind Xenia from the city of Rybinsk. She had told him: "If you accept this, you will lose all that you have previously acquired."

When Tutchkov summoned Metropolitan Cyril, the latter would have agreed to accept the position were it not for the following conditions set by the communist authorities. "If we decide to remove some archbishops," said Tutchkov, "you will be obliged to help us." To this Metropolitan Cyril answered: "if the hierarch is found to have violated a church canon, then yes; but if this is not the case, I shall say to him: Brother, I don't have anything against you, but the Soviet authorities demand of me to remove you and I am compelled to do so." At this Tutchkov retorted, "No, no not so. You will have to make believe that you are doing it of your own will, and you will have to find some pretense for his removal." Under such conditions, of course, Vladika Cyril refused to accept the patriarchal throne. It is reported that he then said to Tutchkov: "Listen, Eugene, you are not a canon, and I'm not a bomb with which you hope to blow up the Russian Church from within."

Metropolitan Cyril was immediately exiled. He was taken to his place of exile in a small boat along the upper Vychegda River. The armed guards who were conducting him did not bother to feed him and only the boatmen out of pity secretly gave the suffering hierarch some bread. When they arrived at their destination Metropolitan Cyril was given over to the care of the owner of a small cabin. The latter was instructed not to give anything to the Metropolitan. Somehow Vladika Cyril fashioned a fishing rod and managed to provide himself with some fish which he boiled in an old tin can. He was in such a state of agony - both from physical exhaustion and psychological torment - that he burst out in bitter tears when his faithful nun Evdokia, after seeking him in these wilds, finally managed to reach him and saw him sitting on the shore thus occupied.

Protopresbyter Michael Polsky gives a few words as to the further fate of Metropolitan Cyril: "At the interrogations of the GPU, discussions are conducted on general topics, and religious disputes are even devised. If your understanding and knowledge are discovered, not to mention opinions on the activities of the authorities, you become a definitely harmful individual. Fortunate is he who can pretend to be stupid, unable to reply to anything. Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, during the years of his endless exile, had two weeks of freedom in Moscow itself. The GPU agent demanded of him that he exert influence on the Patriarch either in the question of the reply to the Archbishop of Canterbury or in some other question. I don't remember which. The Metropolitan several times suffered in silence the petty probes of the agent, but finally he said to him: 'Oh, what a smart one you are!' The maddened agent gave Metropolitan Cyril only an hour to get ready. The Metropolitan was sent first to Ust-Syolsk, and then, in the spring of 1925, to some dense forest at which he arrived only after two weeks of travelling in a boat on a river. He was not given anything to eat, he was left to sleep in the cold outside the forest cabins in which the agents themselves lodged: he was dragged by the beard under the rule of a Communist in a forest where there were only two hunting cabins." (Conditions of the Church in Soviet Russia, pp. 42-43).

In 1924, when Metropolitan Cyril had refused to join the Living Church, the head of the secret police, Tutchkov, had promised him that he would "rot in prison;" and indeed, for the rest of his life he went from prison to exile to yet more remote exile. Being in exile in 1925 when Patriarch Tikhon died, he was unable to undertake the responsibilites of Locum Tenens and this position fell to the Patriarch's third choice, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa. When the latter's substitute, Metropolitan Sergius, issued his infamous "Declaration" in 1927, Metropolitan Cyril was in exile in a remote village in Turukhan in the far north, beyond the Arctic Circle, suffering from a kidney disease. From there he sent outspoken letters to Metropolitan Sergius and to Bishop Damascene of Glukhov (who was in exile in the same region) breaking off communion with Metropolitan Sergius, declaring his acts null and void, and stating that he had overstepped his authority by instituting a whole new church policy without even consulting the Locum Tenens. Bishop Damascene's secretary at that time, E. Lope, who recently published one such letter, also states that in "1931 all the bishops in exile recognized Metropolitan Cyril, and not Metropolitan Sergius, as the head of the Orthodox Church." (Bishops-Confessors, p. 35).

According to information received from the Soviet Union in 1937, Metropolitan Cyril was killed in exile at that time on direct order from Moscow, at the beginning of the Ezhov purges, as a "chief inspirer"of the Catacomb Church.

Sources: Polsky, The New Martyrs of Russia, Vol. II, Jordanville, NY, 1957 and The Condition of the Church in Soviet Russia, Jerusalem, 1931; A Pastoral Wreath to Fr. John of Kronstadt, St. Petersburg, 1911; E. Lope, Bishops-Confessors, 1971; manuscript material from Alexei Rostov, Abbess Juliana, Prof. I. M. Andreyev; L. Regelson, The Tragedy of the Russian Church, Paris, 1977; "Le Messager", No. 107, Paris, 1973; (all in Russian). In English: W. Fletcher, The Russian Orthodox Church Underground, 1917-1970, Oxford, 1970.

THE EPISTLES OF METROPOLITAN CYRIL

The most eminent of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church after the death of Patriarch Tikhon was, without doubt, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan. Chosen by Patriarch Tikhon as the first of the three Locum Tenens who would take his place in case of his death or incapacity, he was also chosen by the vast majority (72) of free bishops in 1926 in an unsuccessful attempt to elect a new Patriarch by a secret election. Being in exile in the years after 1925, he was unable to assume the position of Locum Tenens which therefore fell to the second candidate of Patriarch Tikhon, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, but his voice was still the most authoritative in the whole Russian Church.

After the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, therefore, the opinion of Metropollitan Cyril on this document and on Metropolitan Sergius' "new course" of church action was eagerly awaited. This opinion finally came after about two years, from Metropolitan Cyril's exile in Turukhan in the far north. In this letter, to his friend Bishop Damascene, and even more in his subsequent correspondence with Metropolitan Sergius and other bishops up to the year 1934, Metropolitan Cyril sets forth, perhaps more clearly than any of the other hierarchs of the time, the ecclesiological nature of the error of Metropolitan Sergius. His observations on the nature of the Church's unity and oneness of mind, on the necessity to reject canonical legalism in the Church, on the question of breaking communion and on the presence or absence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate and those who have separated from it, remain very relevant for our own day.

EPISTLE No.1 June 6/19, 1929

(Addressed to Bishop Damascene Cedrick, who like him had been in exile in Turukhan, but had then been freed and was temporarily in Starodoub. Translated, with omissions, from the complete Russian text by E. Lopeshanskaya, Bishop-Confessors, San Francisco, 1971, pp.27-35. There is a partial Russian text in Lev Regelson, The Tragedy of the Russian Church, Paris, YMCA Press, 1977, pp. 166-168, 466-467. Regelson gives the date as May 2/15 and the addressee as the Kazan vicar-bishop Athanasius Malinin; this is an earlier letter whose content is mostly repeated in the longer letter to Bishop Damascene).

Christ Is In our midst! Beloved brother in the Lord, dear Vladika, Most Eminent Bishop!

Your letter, weighty in content, of March 1 I received on the Apodosis of Pascha. In truth Christ is Risen! What you have written to Father John I have read, thanks to the kind attention towards me of my neighbor. Both what you have said to Father John and your letter of March have consoled me - not by their grievous content, but by the oneness of soul and mind of us both which have been revealed there concerning the opinion of the church scandal which is now occurring...

Perplexity with regard to Metropolitan Sergius and the church headed by him could have arisen only because the believers have felt in the administrative-ecclesiastical activity of Metropolitan Sergius an exceeding of the authority which was given him by the title of Substitute of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. For me personally there is no doubt that no substitute can be equal in his rights to the one whom he replaces, nor can he take his place. A substitute is assigned for disposing of current affairs, the order of deciding which is precisely defined by the rules in force, by preceding practice, and by the personal directives of the one whom he replaces. No so-to-speak "rights of establishing", as a kind of reform of the existing institutions, the opening of new posts, and so forth, can be given without first asking the agreement and directives of the one being replaced. And a fundamental change of the very system of church administration, which Metropolitan Sergius has ventured on, exceeds the authority even of the Locum Tenens himself...

...(There follows a technical discussion of the institution of Locum Tenens under Patriarch Tikhon, in order to show how Metropolitan Sergius has exceeded his authority)...

Therefore, until Metropolitan Sergius abolishes the Synod which he has established, I cannot acknowledge as obligatory for me to fulfill a single one of his administrative-ecclesiastical decrees given with the participation of the so-called Temporary Patriarchal Synod. Such a relationship to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod I do not understand as a separation from the part of the Orthodox Church administered by Metropolitan Sergius, since the personal sin of Metropolitan Sergius concerning church administration does not do harm; but I am profoundly grieved that among those bishops who are of one mind with Metropolitan Sergius, in violation of brotherly love, the nickname of "splinter-group" and "schismatics" is already being applied in relation to those who are not in agreement with him and who accuse him of wrongdoing.

I am not separating from anything holy, from anything that authentcally belongs to the Church. I fear only to approach and cling to that which I recognize as sinful in its origin, and therefore I refrain from brotherly communion with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors who are one in mind with him, since I have no other means of accusing a sinning brother. The many attempts known to me of personal written brotherly exhortations addressed to Metropolitan Sergius by the reposed Metropolitan Agathangelus, by Metropolitan Joseph and his two vicars, by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich and Bishop Victor of Vyatka, have not been able to return Metropolitan Sergius to his proper place and to a fitting manner of action. To repeat this attempt of convincing by words would be useless. Therefore, I acknowledge it as a fulfilllment of our archpastoral duty for those Archpastors and all who consider the establishment of the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod" as wrong, to refrain from communion with Metropolitan Sergius and those Archpastors who are of one mind with him. By thus, refraining, for my part, I am not in the least affirming or suspecting any lack of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists (may the Lord God preserve us all from such a thought!), but I only underline my unwillingness and refusal to participate in the sins of others.

Therefore, I will not liturgize with Metropolitan Sergius and Archpastors of one mind with him. But in case of mortal danger, with a peaceful conscience I will receive Unction and the final prayers from a priest appointed by Sergius or whoever submits to the Synod established by him, if there is not present a priest who shares my relation to Metropolitan Sergius and the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod." Similarly, if I find myself in a locality where all the churches are under the "Temporary Patriarchal Synod," I will not enter them to pray at public Divine services, but I acknowledge it as possible, without a preparatory sanctification of the church, to serve Liturgy in one of them either alone or with the participation of clergy and believing laymen one in mind with me, if such ones happen to be there. In my opinion, every clergyman who shares my attitude toward Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod established by him can act in the same way.

As for laymen, in all conscience they should not participate actively in the church-parish life of parishes which commemorate the name Metropolitan Sergius at Divine services as the chief Archpastor. But in itself such a commemoration of the name of Metropolitan Sergius cannot be made the responsibility of laymen and should not serve for them as an obstacle to attending the Divine services and receiving the Holy Gifts in churches which submit to Metropolitan Sergius, if in the given locality there is no Orthodox church which preserves unharmed its canonical relation to the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. And to pray for Metropolitan Sergius, together with other Archpastors and Orthodox Christians in general (on lists for commemoration at the Proskomedia, molebens, and so forth) is not a sin. This is the duty of all Orthodox Christians, until a general church ex-communication shall declare the abuse made by Metropolitan Sergius of the church authority entrusted to him to be a sin unto death. (Matt. 18:15-17; I John 5:16)...

At the present time Metropolitan Sergius no longer conceals the insincerity of his declaration that the Synod exists with him and falls with him. In a conversation with you he directly declared: "My future successors will be compelled to take into account the situation which I have established in the Church." But in this declaration there is much more human self-assurance than a God-enlightened understanding of his and the Church's situatiion. It is comprehensible after this that obedience to Metropolitan Sergius, which holds up only on moral authority, has automatically ceased on the part of all sincere Orthodox people. All such ones have said both in their conscience and in the hearing of others that they preserve communion with the Universal Church through the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, but not through his private delegate.

For me personally everything set forth here is a sufficient feeling-out of a canonical foundation under my feet, and an appeal to Metropolitan Sergius with a cumbersome epistle, it seems to me, would be an unnecessary exaggeration of the church significance of Metropolitan Sergius and a pouring of oil upon the fire of self-esteem which is already burning poor Vladika. There has been no lack of brotherly exhortations with regard to him for these two years; but Metropolitan Sergius is deaf to them. He will not listen to a new one, either, even though it might be the call of one older.

Therefore it is sufficient, it seems to me, for the personal representative of the Locum Tenens, if everyone who is not in agreement with his church activity should personally bring to his awareness that this activity does not affect us, and we can give no encouragement by our agreement and obedience. One can frankly ask that as long as the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod" exists, Metropolitan Sergius should not trouble to send us his directives, since for them, in our archpastoral conscience, we cannot acknowledge any obligatory significance.

May the Holy Spirit, Who is always in the Church, conduct us through the furnace of the present difficult trials to the greater manifestatiion of His Truth, lest we in any way decrease in the smallest part of our hope, or become dissolved in thought in this world's evil which surrounds us.

From Epistle No.2: 1929

(Russian text in Regelson, p. 168)

I will not and do not condemn anyone, but I cannot call anyone to participate in the sins of others, just as I cannot condemn those hierarchs headed by Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovikh) who have confessed their unwillingness to participate in that which their conscience acknowledges as sinful. This confession is reckoned for them as a violation by them of church discipline. But church discipline is capable of preserving its efficacy only as long as it is an actual reflection of the hierarchal conscience of the Catholic Church; and discipline can never itself replace this conscience. As soon as it produces its demands not by force of the indications of this conscience, but by impulses foreign to the Church and insincere, the individual hierarchal conscience unfailingly will stand on the side of the Catholic-hierarchal principle of the Church's existence, which is not at all one and the same thing as outward unity at any cost. Then the instability of church discipline becomes inevitable, as a consequence of sin. And there can be only one way out of sin - repentance and fruits worthy of it. And it seems to me, from my far-away place, that this repentance is equally to be expected from those of Leningrad (i.e., Metropolitan Joseph and those with him) and those of Tashkent (i.e., Sergianist hierarchs) who condemn them...

A copy of the first of these letters was sent to Metropolitan Sergius and provoked from him the following reply of September 5/18, 1929 (text in Regelson, p. 469): " ... Without acknowledging us as either schismatics or as without grace, and consequently having no permissible grounds for a schism, you nonetheless break off communion with us. Can one then agree with you that you are causing a schism and remain at peace with the Holy Church?

"You have broken off eucharistic communion with us and at the same time do not consider either that you have caused a schism or that we stand outside the Church. Such a theory is entirely unacceptable for church thinking - it is an attempt to keep ice on a hot grill. Of all the visible bonds of the church body, eucharistic communion is the most essential, inasmuch as in its absence the remaining bonds of unity do not hold."

Even before this letter, on July 24/August 6, Metropolitan Sergius and his "Synod" had declared the Mysteries of the bishops who had separated from him to be without grace, comparing their "schisms" to the Renovationists. "The Mysteries performed in separation from church unity ... former Bishop of Gdov Dimitry (Lyubimov), former Bishop of Urazova Alexis (Bui), as also being in a state of interdiction, are likewise invalid, and those who return from these schisms, if they were baptized in schism, are to be received through the Mystery of Holy Chrismation; marriages concluded in schism likewise are to be completed by the church blessing and the reading of the final prayer in the rite of marrige, 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit.' Those who die in Renovationism and in the indicated schisms may not be given a funeral, even at the great entreaty of relatives, and no memorial Liturgy may be served for them" (Regelson, pp.168-9). This action, together with Metropolitan Sergius' letter, evoke a new epistle of Metropolitan Cyril, addressed this time directly to Metropolitan Sergius, wherein he treats specifically the "blasphemies" of denying grace in the Mysteries either of Sergianist or non-Sergianists.

Epistle No.3: October 28-30/ November 10-12, 1929

(Russian text in Regelson, pp. 168-9, 469-71)

Concerning these blasphemies I learn for the first time from you. As for my only possible attitude to them you can judge at least by the horror with which "I cast away from myself the idea of the absence of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists." You yourself make note of my horror, and when after this you join me also to the number of such blasphemers, you are simply speaking an untruth. If such blasphemies are actually uttered by anyone, they are the fruit of the personal temperament of the speakers, the fruit - I shall say with your own words - of "the unillumined darkness of some and the loss of spiritual balance of others." And how bitter it is, Vladika, that you also, in an equal degree, reveal the loss of spiritual balance. For your Christian love, which, according to your awareness, has "a certain boldness to believe that the threatening utterance of the Lord (Matt. 12:31 - Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven) will not be applied to these unfortunate ones with all strictness," you nonetheless do not dare to find a more loving means of action on them than the decree of your Synod of July 24 (August 6), 1929, n. 1864, which forbids, in spite of all entreaties, the serving of funerals for those who die alienated from your church administration. Not to mention the re-chrismation of the baptized who have been chrismated with the same Holy Chrism with which the priests obedient to you anoint, or the re-marriages of those already married. In April, in concern over the erring, you busy yourself with the removal of the anathemas of the Council of 1667 (i.e., against the Old Believers), while in August you consolidate the church dispute which has been evoked by your activity and is not yet clear to all, making it an irreconcilable church animosity.

Do not forget that you are creating animosity ... chiefly against those who, during the existence of Renovationism of various degrees, by their Orthodox feeling, without knowing the written laws, faultlessly determined the authentic church truth and returned to it the shepherds themselves, who were about to waver in their church path as a result of a bookish application of the written canons. In the decree no. 1864 of your Synod I hear a sentence similar to that of the Jewish high priests: This people that knoweth not the law are accursed (John 7:49).

This proceeds, of course, from the fact that you and the Synod understand a negative attitude to your activity in church administration to be a denial of the Church Herself, Her Mysteries and all Her holy things. This is why it so amazes you that, while refraining from celebrating Liturgy with you, I nonetheless do not consider either myself or you to be outside the Church. "For church thinking such a theory is completely unacceptable," you declare, "it is an attempt to keep ice on a hot grill." If in this case there is any attempt on my part, it is not to keep ice on a hot grill, but rather to melt away the ice of a dialectical-bookish application of the canons and to preserve the sacredness of their spirit. I refrain from liturgizing with you not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be actualized at our joint celebration, but because the communion of the Chalice of the Lord would be to both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our inward attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility of offering in complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise.

Therefore, the whole fullness of my refraining concerns only you and the hierarchs one in mind with you, but not the ordinary clergy, and even less laymen. Among the ordinary clergy there are very few conscious ideologues of your church activity....

No matter how much you emphasize the strictness of the judgement of the canons to which you refer in accusing those disobedient to you, your interpretations produce little impression either on those who are disobedient or on the church community as a whole, which is entirely ceasing to trust the dialectical canonics which have developed among us to frightful proportions since the appearance of the Renovationism. Remember how, on the basis of canonical literalism, the Renovationist constituent so-called council of 1923 condemned the Patriarch not only to deprivation of rank, but even of monasticism. Therefore, do not misuse the letter of the canonical norms, Vladika, lest we turn the holy canons into simple canons. Church life in the last years is composed and actualized not according to the literal meaning of the canons. The very transferral of the Patriarchal rights and obligations to Metropolitan Peter was done in a way unprecedented and unknown to the canons, but the church consciousness accepted this unprecedented way as a means of preserving the wholeness of the Patriarchal order, considering the latter as the chief guarantee of our Orthodox way of life, especially in view of the Renovationist denial of the idea of the Patriarchate.

To this letter Metropolitan Sergius replied with an epistle of December20/January2, 1930, defending his "rights" as possessing all the authority of a Patriarch himself. Shortly after this letter Metropolitan Sergius and his obedient Synod announced that Metropolitan Cyril had been given over to a church trial and was relieved of the administration of his diocese; unlike Metropoliltan Joseph and other more outspoken opponents of Metropolitan Sergius, however, he was not yet totally interdicted or declared to be outside the Church.

Nothing more was done by either hierarch until 1933, when Metropolitan Cyril was given a brief period of freedom (in the city of Gzhatsk) from his exiles and imprisonments. On July 15/28 of that year he addressed a final letter to Metropolitan Sergius, summarizing his own position (Russian text in Regelson, pp.175-9). It begins thus (referring to the 70th year of his life, which he had just reached):

"Having reached the age which is, according to the word of the holy Psalmist, the beginning of the boundary of earthly human life (Ps. 89:10), standing, so to speak, at the entrance to the grave, I acknowledge my duty to explain to my brethren, the Archpastors, pastors, and believing people, why I consider you a usurper of church authority and refuse to submit to your administrative-ecclesiastical decrees, as well as those of the Synod which you have established. However, I have no immediate opportunity to bring my confession to the hearing of the Church, and therefore I am compelled to do this, addressing it to you who brazenly affirm yourself to be the Chief Bishop of the country, perhaps out of sincere error, and, in any case, with tacit allowance of a part of the brother bishops, who are now guilty together with you of the violation of the canonical good order of the Orthodox Russian Church."

The rest of this epistle details once again Metropolitan Cyril's reasons for refusing to accept the authority which Metropolitan Sergius was claiming for himself in the the Church.

During this time of freedom, Metropolitan Cyril actively entered into contact with-and himself encouraged and organized-"non-commemorators" of Metropolitan Sergius, those who commemorated only the name of Metropolitan Peter at Divine services and were now developing a separate church organization, later to be called the "Catacomb Church." In two epistles written before his next arrest in July, 1934, he gives the canonical foundation for his activity, which continues to be the canonical foundation to this day not only of the "non-commemorating" Catacomb Church in Russia, but also of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. The decree of Patriarch Tikhon of November 7/20, 1920, which Metropolitan Cyril cites as the specific canonical basis for church organization, states that those cut off from contact with the church center in Moscow should organize themselves as well as possible in their circumstances, choosing the eldest among them as their chief hierarch.

Epistle No.4: January, 1934

(Russian text in Regelson, pp.179-181)

Reply to the opinion of a certain one that it was indispensable for Metropolitan Cyril to declare himself Locum Tenens until the liberation of Metropolitan Peter.

The disorder in the Russian Orthodox Church I view not as concerning the teaching which She holds, but as concerning administration. The preservation of a fitting order in church administration from the death of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon until the calling of a lawful Church Council is secured by the Testament of His Holiness the Patriarch, which he gave by authority of a special right given only to him, and not to be transmitted to anyone else, to name a Subsitute for himself. This Testament is the norm of the administration of the Russian Church until the content of this Testament shall be entirely exhausted. The Hierarch who bears the obligations of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens preserves his church authority until the election by a Council of a new Patriarch. If there is a delay in the election of a Patriarch, the Locum Tenens remains in his post until death, or his own voluntary renunciation of it, or his removal according to an ecclesiastical trial. He has not authority

to assign for himself a Substitute with rights identical to his own rights as Locum Tenens. He can only have a temporary Substitute for current affairs who acts according to his instructions. It is in this point that the error of Metropolitan Sergius is to be found, since he has recognized himself, in the absence of Metropolitan Peter, to have all his rights as Locum Tenens. His sin is in exceeding his authority, and the Orthodox Episcopate should not have acknowledged such an authority, and once being convinced that Metropolitan Sergius is administering the Church without the guidance of Metropolitan Peter, it should have been administered by force of the Patriarchal Ukase of November 7/20, 1920, preparing to give an answer of its activity to Metropolitan Peter or to a Council. If the Locum Tenens should die before the calling of a Council, it is essential again to turn to the Patriarchal Testament and to acknowledge as having the rights of the Locum Tenens one of the still-living hierarchs indicated in the Patriarchal Testament. If none of these is alive, then the effect of the Testament is ended, and the Church automatically goes over to administration according to the Patriarchal Ukase of November 7/20, 1920, and the common efforts of the Episcopate should bring into realization the calling of a Council for the election of a Patriarch.

Therefore, only after the death of Metropolitan Peter or his lawful removal do I find it not only possible for myself, but even obligatory, to actively interfere in the general church administration of the Russian Church. Until then, the hierarchs who acknowledge as their Chief Hierarch only Metropolitan Peter, commemorating his name in proper order at the Divine services, and not recognizing the administration of Sergius as a lawful succession, can exist parallel to those who recognize Sergius, until a conciliar trial. Those banished from their dioceses should spiritually guide those few who acknowledge them as their Archpastors, and those who have not been banished should guide the spiritual life of the whole diocese, by every means sustaining ties with each other and church unity.

For me personally it is impossible at the present time to step forth, since I am entirely unsure of the character of the attitudes of Metropolitan Peter, in order to be convinced of his actual views and to decide how to act. In any case, I cannot be the Substitute of Metropolitan Peter in correct order without his decree concerning this. But if Metropolitan Peter voluntarily renounces his post of Locum Tenens, then by authority of the Testament of His Holiness the Patriarch, and of the promise which I gave him, I will fulfill my duty and take up the weight of the post of Locum Tenens, even if Metropolitan Peter might have assigned another successor to himself, for he has no right to make such an assignment.

Epistle No.5: February, 1934

(Russian text in Regelson, pp.181-184)

To an unnamed Hierarch:

Christ is in our midst! Your Eminence, Most Eminent Master, beloved in the Lord, brother Archbishop!

Your lines filled with condescension and trust towards me, a sinner, have furnished me profound consolation. May the Lord save you! You are distressed by my slowness and what seems to you excessive caution. Forgive me for thus distressing you, and be patient a little longer with me. It is not weariness from long wanderings that calls this forth in me, but an incomplete clarification of the conditions which surround me and all of us. I lack this clarity not for an evaluation of the conditions themselves, but for a fitting understanding of the further conclusions from them which turn out to be unavoidable for those who have made these conditions. The putting of these conclusions into practice will probably not be long in coming, and then the presence of facts will convince everyone of the necessity of definite actions according to the needs of the moment.

But are there really so few such facts in existence? you may ask. Yes, they are not few, but the acceptance of them is refracted in the consciousness of the church community into such a variety of tints that they cannot by any means be pinned down to a single common stem. The necessity for a correcting antidote is acknowledged, but there is no common foundation for it, and Metropolitan Sergius well understands the benefit of such a situation and does not cease to take advantage of it. In one of two letters to me he, not without a certain right, indicates this difference of opinion among those who have addressed reproaches to him, and therefore, of course, he does not take them into consideration. The accusation of heresy, even the most decisive one, is capable only of causing a smile on his lips, a pleasant pretext to console yet again, by means of his mastery of dialectical canonics, those who keep communiion with him in assurance of his total irreproachability in relation to dogma.

However, among them there are not a few who see the erroneousness of many of Metropolitan Sergius' measures, but since they understand in the same way he does the source and degree of the authority which he has appropriated, they condescendingly endure this erroneousness as merely a kind of enticement by power, and not as a criminal appropriation of it. Reproaching him with failing to oppose, and consequently of belonging to, a heresy, we risk depriving them of the psychological possibility of re-uniting with us and losing them forever for Orthodoxy. After all, to acknowledge belonging to a heresy is much more difficult than to acknowledge the incorrectness on one's understanding of the outward order of church life. It is necessary that for such ones of noble soul also, the authoritative utterances of Metropolitan Sergius should be explained as his personal invention, and not as a right that is based on the Testament of His Holiness the Patriarch. Everyone must realize that this Testament in no way applies to Metropolitan Sergius and those like him.

Only those three persons mentioned in the Testament could accept the Patriarchal rights and obligations, and only to these three personally belongs the right to step forth as a temporary church center until the election of a new Patriarch. But they cannot entirely give over this right to anyone of their own choice, because the Patriarch's Testament is a document of quite exceptional origin, bound up by conciliar sanction only with the person of our first Patriarch. Therefore, with the death of all three candidates indicated in the Testament, the Testament of Patriarch Tikhon loses its validity, and church administration is to be established on the foundation of the Ukase of November 7/20, 1920. One must also be guided by this Ukase in case of the temporary impossibility of having contact with the person who bears the dignity of the church center by power of the Testament. This is what should hold also at the historical moment which the Church is now going through.

The different understanding of the Patriarchal Testament which is affirmed by Metropolitan Sergius has already led to the fact that the Testament which was left for securing the speedy election of a new Patriarch has become the foundation of the substitution for the person of a Patriarch in the church administration by some kind of collegial "Patriarchate." Whether the blessing of God rests on this undertaking of Metropolitan Sergius we do not dare to judge until a lawful Council by its sentence shall utter the judgment of the Holy Spirit concerning him. However, just as with everything akin to Renovationism, we cannot acknowledge the church administration which has been renovated by Metropolitan Sergius as our Orthodox administration coming by right of succession from His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon. And therefore, remaining in canonical unity with Metropolitan Peter, the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, under the present impossibility of contact with him, we acknowledge as the only legitimate thing the organization of the church administration on the foundation of the Patriarchal Ukase of November 7/20, 1920.

I firmly believe that the Orthodox Episcopate, with brotherly union and mutual support, will preserve the Russian Church, with God's help, in age-old Orthodoxy all the time of the validity of the Patriarchal Testatment, and will conduct it to a lawful Council....

It seems to me that both you yourself and your correspondent do not distinguish those actions of Metropolitan Sergius and his partisans which are performed by them in proper order by power of those grace-given rights received through the mystery of the priesthood, from those other activities which are performed with an exceeding of their sacramental rights and according to human cunning, as a means of protecting and supporting their self-invented rights in the Church.

Such are the actions of Bishop Zacharius and Priest Patapov of which you speak. These are sacramental acts only in form, while in essence they are a usurpation of sacramental activity, and therefore are blasphemous, without grace, non-ecclesiastical. But the Mysteries performed by Sergianists who are correctly ordained and not prohibited to serve as priests, are undoubtedly saving Mysteries for those who receive them with faith, in simplicity, without deliberations and doubts concerning their efficacy, and who do not even suspect anything incorrect in the Sergianist order of the Church. But at the same time they serve for judgment and condemnation for the very performers of them and for those who approach them well understanding the untruth that exists in Sergianism, and by their lack of opposition to it reveal a criminal indifference towards the mocking of the Church. This is why it is essential for an Orthodox Bishop or priest to refrain from communioin with Sergianists in prayer. The same thing is essential for laymen who have a conscious attitude to all the details of church life.

Conclusion

The epistles of Metropolitan Cyril that have come down to us all deal with one and the same question: the canonical position of Metropolitan Sergius in the Russian Orthodox Church. But their significance goes far beyond any mere question of canonical "correctness" or "incorrectness." The canons were made to bring order among Christians, not to force them into a strait-jacket of legalsim, and thus the epistles of Metropolitan Cyril, which are full of this awareness, are a guide to us in the difficulties and often unprecedented canonical conditions of 20th-century Orthodoxy. The apostasy of our times, to a degree unique in Christian history, is proceeding not primarily by false teachings or canonical deviations, but rather by a false understanding of Orthodoxy on the part of those who may even be perfectly Orthodox in their dogmatic teaching and canonical situation. A correct "Orthodoxy" deprived of the spirit of true Christianity - this is the meaning of Sergianism, and it cannot

be fought by calling it a "heresy," which it is not, nor by detailing its canonical irregularities, which are only incidental to something much more important.

Unfortunately, few seem to be able to understand this in our day of deceptive over-simplifications. Metropolitan Sergius himself, despite his theological reputation, could make no sense of Metropolitan Cyril's position, which is nothing but the balanced "royal path" of Orthodox moderation, between the extremes of Renovationism and Sergianist legalism on the one hand, and a too hasty accusation of Sergianist heresy or lack of grace on the other. Metropolitan Cyril's position is all the more important in that the situation in the 20th-century Greek Church has been very similar to that of the Russian Church: the Calendar reform also was not a question either of heresy or (primarily) of canonical transgressions, and the denial of grace in the Mysteries either of new calendarists or old calendarists has only served to increase the spirit of factionalism and to hinder any possible reconciliation of those who stand in the tradition and those who have followed the reformers thus far against their will. Metropolitan Cyril took up the organization of a separate church organization only with great reluctance, and he did so not because he believed that he and his followers alone constitued the true Church, but solely in order to avoid dependence on those whose confession of Orthodoxy had been compromised, even though they were still part of the same Church.

The position today of the Russian Church Outside of Russia with regard to the other Russian jurisdictions is identical to that of Metropolitan Cyril with regard to the Sergianist Synod, and her relation to the other Orthodox Churches of the free world is heading in the same direction, although communion with them has not yet been formally broken. Metropolitan Cyril's message of moderation is thus still very applicable in our own day.

Metropolitan Cyril's important distinction between the true Mysteries of Sergianist clergy, and the "usurpation of sacrametnal activity" manifested in such acts as Metropolitan Sergius' interdictions and excommunications of those who disagreed with his "new church policy," is likewise a fundamental one for our time. The "bookish" application of the canons, which Metropolitan Cyril so severely condemns, cannot understand this distinction; and thus some people can find themselves in a position which may be "legally correct" but is at the same time profoundly un-Christian - as if the Christian conscience is compelled to obey any command of the church authorities, as long as these authorities are properly "canonical." This blind concept of obedience for its own sake is one of the chief causes for the success of Sergianism in our century - both within and outside the Moscow Patriarchate. Of course the Christian conscience does not accept the ex-communications of a church authority made

under political or other non-ecclesiastical pressure (whether from the Turkish Sultan upon the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 19th century, or the Communist authorities upon the Moscow Patriarchate in our own century), but it is a kind of ecclesiastical legalsim to draw from this the conclusion that all the Mysteries of such a church authority are thereby without grace.

The epistles of Metropolitan Cyril present, perhaps as clearly as it can be stated, the truth that the law and teaching of the Church of Christ can never be a matter of merely soulless "obedience." The Catacomb Church inside Russia to this day (to the best of our knowledge), together with the free Russian Church Outside of Russia, have not denied the Mysteries of the Moscow Patriarchate, but they hold no communion with it; thus they have no part in the un-Christian acts performed in the name of "Orthodoxy" by the Moscow leadership under Communist pressure, but they are also not deprived of solidarity with a confessor within the Moscow Patriarchate such as Father Dimitri Dudko, with whom full canonical communion is impossible only because of his politically-dominated leadership.

Finally, Metropolitan Cyril's emphasis on the oneness of mind of those travelling the path of true Orthodoxy shows us our own path today. The leaders of "world Orthodoxy" are pursuing a ruinous policy of renovationism and apostasy, but it is a hazardous and self-defeating thing to attempt to define the precise point beyond which they, and especially their unwitting followers, will have left Orthodoxy without hope of return. This judgment is not ours to make. But to us is given to stand firm in the true tradition of Orthodoxy handed down to us by our Fathers, to refrain from communion with those who participate in the apostasy from true Christianity, and to seek out those of like mind who are resolved to be faithful to Orthodoxy to the death. On such a foundation the Catacomb Church remains firm to this day in Soviet Russia, awaiting the day when it can freely and openly give its testimony of faithfulness to Christ.

Platina, 1982

Tough Questions - Simple Answers

2010-12-12T16:16:00.005-06:00

about the Russian fragments

Why are there so many fragments?

According to Fr. Seraphim Rose this phenomenon is a result of the super-correct disease. In Fr. Seraphim's day it was mainly in the Greek Church, but he saw it starting in the Russian Church even back then. He saw it as the same disease as renovationism, only the flip side of renovationism.

Super-correctness is a disease that is peculiar to Orthodoxy, and we see it now in other Churches, too [Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian]. We can see that as world Orthodoxy advances in renovationism [ecumenism], the super-correct disease also advances.

What keeps the fragments from uniting with each other?

The issue of "canonicity." Each of them thinks they are the only one that is canonical.

What keeps the fragments from uniting with the Sister Churches?

This is a double-edged sword. The issues of canonicity and ecclesiology.

The Sister Churches will not unite with the Russian fragments because the Russian fragments are not canonical. And the Russian fragments will not unite with the Sister Churches because of the Sister Church's ecclesiology.

Understanding the SIster Church ecclesiology, "royalpathism" [especially the so-called "cyprianism" aspect of the Royal Path] is what this blog is about.

On Moderation

2010-12-12T16:10:00.000-06:00

The Royal Path

(He Basilike Hodos)

Moderation

(mesótes, the median or the middle path,

in more classical Greek, metriopátheia)

To: Exarchate Clergy, faithful, and friends

From: Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna

Evlogia Kyriou.

One of our clergyman, a university professor, wrote to me yesterday about the Patristic notion of moderation. He is thinking of writing on this subject after his impending retirement. (I truly hope that he does so.) His insightful comments reminded me, by contrast, of several very crude and unbalanced comments that I have received from several extremist Greek Old Calendarists over the past few months.

I have hesitated even to address the incessant ranting of these several individuals, who frequently assail me with their opinions, since they do not approach matters of disagreement with the understanding that their opinions are open to rational discussion; rather they consider their opinions to be "given truths" and not open to further consideration.

Most of these critics misuse the Fathers, whom they tout as their guides, even if they obviously do not read or know them well. They select from Patristic texts only what supports their views, missing, in most cases, the actual meaning of what they are quoting. More often than not, moreover, they quote material which is, when placed in context, diametrically opposed to the opinions that they champion.

For example, these and other extremist Orthodox advocates inevitably quote St. Mark of Ephesus as having opposed a middle road between false doctrine and error, unintelligently thinking that what he said about truth and falsehood constitutes a rejection of argumentation, discussion, dialogue, and, of course, moderation.

As I said in my introduction to Professor Constantine Cavarnos' excellent book on the life, thought, character, and writings of this great Father (SAINT MARK OF EPHESOS [Brookline, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 2008]), in fact "...he serves as a perfect model for those who seek the Royal Path, having planted, as he did, the banner of firm fidelity to the Faith in the ground of Patristic moderation" (p. 21).

In the spirit of actually reading and understanding what the Fathers say in context about moderation and the danger of "liberalism" or extremism in approaching ecclesiastical, theological, and spiritual matters, I would like to quote two superb passages, one from St. Gregory of Constantinople (or Nazianzus) and one from St. Gregory of Nyssa, both fourth-century Fathers and close friends. Their words, which I hope will help our extremist critics, will more importantly help us to understand why we, as traditionalists, are only genuinely loyal to Holy Tradition when we are moderate and moved by love.

The first of these quotations, from St. Gregory of Nyssa's "On Virginity" (PATROLOGIA GRAECA, XLVI, cols. 353 B-D) I have translated myself, while the second, St. Gregory of Constantinople's "Oration 32," is from Martha Vinson's ST. GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS; SELECT ORATIONS (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2003).

* * *

setting the midpoint between too little and too much, one finds the distinction between virtue and evil

I. St. Gregory of Nyssa

"...[A]ll virtue is reckoned by moderation, any divergence to either side of it being evil; setting the midpoint between too little and too much, one finds the distinction between virtue and evil. The reason for these things is made clearer by examples. We know cowardice and temerity to be two contrasting vices, the one by deficiency, the other by an excess of boldness, courage constituting the midpoint between them. Also, piety is neither atheism nor superstition; it is equally impious to deny the one God and to presume that there are many gods. ...One who flees from stinginess and extravagance, separating himself from both of these contrary passions, will attain the moral quality of liberality (generosity); for this is what liberality is, a disposition neither, on the one hand, to disbursing vast and unavailing funds nor, on the other hand, to meeting needed expenditures in a quibbling manner. ...Surely, then, prudence (sobriety) itself is moderation, obviously entailing deviations to either of its extremes as a vice. In the one instance, one who lacks vigor of soul and is so easily dissuaded from struggle with the passions of sensuality, having never approached the path to a life of virtue and prudence, falls to dishonor; in the other instance, he who goes beyond sound prudence, passing beyond the moderation of this virtue, falls, as it were, into the pit of the 'doctrines of devils,' searing, as the Apostle says, his very 'conscience' [I St. Timothy 4:2]."

II. St. Gregory of Constantinople

"So, with this in mind, my brothers, let us not be slothful in pursuit of the good, but fervent in the spirit, lest by slow degrees we sleep the sleep of death and the Enemy sow his evil seed upon us in our slumber, for sloth is akin to sleep; and let our zeal be untainted by selfishness [better, I think, "by self-centeredness" - AC] and folly lest we be carried away and stray from the royal path and surely stumble in one of two ways: either our slothfulness will need a whip or our fanaticism will hurl us to destruction. Instead, by extracting from both as much as will best serve our purpose, a sense of meekness from the one, impassioned feelings from the other, let us shun the injurious effects of both, the hesitation of the one, the recklessness of the other; in this way we can avoid ineffectual deficiency and the dangers of excess. Unproductive sloth and undisciplined passion are equally useless things; the one, because it does not draw nigh to the good, the other because it overshoots the mark and produces something that is righter than right, as the divine Solomon well understood: Do not swerve, he says, to the right or the left, and do not fall from [the] opposite extremes into an equal evil, namely, sin."

Three things that can help us see the Royal Path

2010-09-16T23:05:00.006-05:00

The Royal Path is not easy to discern, and there are few who ever even catch a glimpse of it. It is something we have to strive for, and once we have a perception of it, we have to nourish that perception. And this perception is something easy to lose unless we are vigilant and attentive.

Three things I have found that can help us see the Royal Path:

√ keep in mind the Church triumphant. The Church on earth is where heaven and earth overlap. First there is the Heavenly Church, then next the Heavenly Church extends to earth. It is a mistake to think that a formula [Church rituals, rules, etc.] can cause the Heavenly Church to come on earth.

√ keep in mind that the two extremes, world-Orthodox and super-correct, are the same spiritual disease but opposite manifestations of the disease. Fr. Seraphim described it as one being the flip side of the other, as a coin.

√ keep in mind that the Royal Path is not found between the two extremes.
Many things are "hidden" in our Faith, especially from those who are blinded spiritually. Christ even prayed thanking the Father that certain things are hidden from the wise and revealed unto babes. Our sacraments are called "Mysteries" because there is a spiritual reality in them. The spiritual reality is hidden from those who are spiritually blinded, and they can only see the sacraments as ritual.

It is the same with the royal path. There is a spiritual reality to it that is hidden more often than not. Those unable to see the spiritual reality will usually try to define the royal path as some place or compromise between the extremes of super-correct ["true" Orthodoxy] and world Orthodoxy.

-jh

A Fruitless Argument

2010-08-02T11:55:00.000-05:00

Most Reverend Georgiy (Kravchenko), Bishop of Bolgrad and Belgorod-Dnestrovsk

Unfortunately, the question of whether “official” Orthodox churches in the World Council of Churches (WCC) have grace or do not have grace is a constant issue among anti-ecumenists. Many of these churches have accepted the new calendar and are continually injecting new heretical “religious” principles into the life of their church, which leads, of course, to the dilution of the doctrinal teachings of the Church, which is a deadly sin in the eyes of God and the Holy Church. Throughout all of this, the main point is lost, how does one remain faithful when a church has changed from within and not sin before God and the Holy Church?

We are all well acquainted with the Gospel parable of the wheat and tares and know that the Head of the Church, Jesus, forbade Apostles James and John to cast fire from above unto the sinful people, saying, “you do not know what kind of spirit you are of,” for the Son of God did not come to destroy the souls of man, but to save them. (Luke 9:54-55) We also believe that God revealed only as much of Himself as is necessary for our salvation. All that is left unknown is a divine mystery, which is not known even to the angels. We do not have the right to direct God on where and how to act, especially as we are taught by the Orthodox catechism that, “The Church is holy, even though it contains sinners. Sinners who do not purify themselves through true repentance do not prevent the Church from being holy. Unrepentant sinners or the visible or hidden actions of church officials will be cut out like dead elements from the body of the Church by God’s judgment, and in this way, it remains holy…”

The second half of the 15^th rule of the First and Second Councils clearly and definitively lays down the law on how the faithful of the Holy Church should act in circumstances similar to those in which we presently find ourselves in: “If one of the bishops, metropolitans, or patriarchs begins to preach any heretical teaching that has been condemned by the councils, then the other clerics and faithful have the right and are even obliged (before the matter is considered by a council, as cited in the 15^th rule of the First and Second Councils), to immediately leave the bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch they are accountable to. Note that not only will they not be subjected to any canonical punishment, but on the contrary they will be worthy of praise, for in doing so, they did not condemn or rise up against actual, lawful bishops, but against false-bishops and false-teachers. They did not cause a schism in the church, but on the contrary prevented a schism in the church and avoided dividing it.” Bishop John of Smolensk, who correctly and in complete accordance with the study of the canons, points out in his commentary of this rule, that a cleric will not be guilty, but rather will be lauded for leaving his bishop, if the latter “is preaching any heretical teaching openly and publicly in the church, revealing that it is premeditated and leading to an obvious contradiction of the church and is not expressing simply his personal opinion, which can just as easily be retracted by him personally, without disturbing the peace of the church.”

St. Maxim the Confessor, martyred for Christ’s Truth, wrote, “I categorically refuse to having anything to do with heretical bishops, but rather hold fast to the faithful course of the historical Church, that of Christ, the Apostles, and the Council Fathers, for if you fall away from the visible Church, you separate yourself from the hidden, which is inseparably linked to the former. The pure, sinless Bride of Christ, free of any blemish or imperfection, dwells in the being of the historic Church, with its episcopate begun by God, and its salvific mysteries.”

This should be enough for us to understand that the question of grace or the lack of grace should not trouble the anti-ecumenists, but rather, they should concern themselves with the question of the earnestness of their resistance to heresy and the matter of saving souls. Currently, among the anti-ecumenists, we observe how some of them, who profess to be defenders of the truth, have erased the first part of the 15^th rule of the First and Second Councils from their memory and are inventing “their” new heresies, which HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HOLY COUNCILS OR THE FATHERS. Then they accuse everyone else of these “heresies” and then triumphantly separate themselves from everyone else “based on the second part of the 15^th rule of the First and Second Councils.” In this way they transform the act of standing for the purity of the Orthodox faith into something unlawful and calamitous to the soul, for it is exactly such people who are condemned by the first part of this rule. Those who “under the pretext of various accusations, leave their prelates and cause schisms and divide the oneness of the Church.” There is but one conclusion, the grace of God is a two-edged sword and depending on the free will of a believer can either spare or cleave that person. Therefore the tragedy for those who profess to be faithful Christians, but who nevertheless depart from Christ’s Truth either by word or deed and sow discord and temptation in the Church is that the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they knowingly disobey, stands in judgment of them, as stated by Apostle Paul (1Corinthians 9:2-9). Therefore, the discord, mutual accusations and division among the anti-ecumenists in this question is quite harmful and fruitless and only pleases the enemies of Orthodoxy.

+Georgy (Kravchenko), Bishop of Bolgrad and Belgorod-Dnestrovsk

Source: Viewpoint, the website of the Bolgrad Diocese of the ROCA

-- from The Sower Vol. 1 Issue 3

The Catacomb Tikhonite Church 1974

2010-07-25T13:42:00.011-05:00

The super-correct have the misconception that our accepting the SIR as a sister church in 1994 was a step towards the ROCOR-MP union. This makes no sense. The fact is that the SIR objected to the ROCOR-MP union from the beginning and even broke off communion with us because of it. The following papers are a part of ROCOR history that reveal ROCOR's long-standing compatibility with so-called "cyprianism." In reading this article remember that the term "true" as in "true Orthodoxy" and "true Church" did not mean then what it means today. Today those calling themselves "true" are the super-correct fragments, both Greek and Russian. The highlighted parts are my emphases. -jh

The Catacomb Tikhonite Church 1974

THE FIRST PUBLIC INFORMATION IN THE WEST CONCERNING

BY METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS, CHIEF HIERARCH OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF RUSSIA

MANY TRUE ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS in the free world were shocked and disturbed when the world-renowned Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, now living in exile in Switzerland, wrote in his Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, meeting at Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, in September of this year, that "one should not substitute in imaginary fashion a catacomb church for the real Russian Orthodox people," denied the very existence of a "secret church organization," and warned the hierarchs of the Church Outside of Russia that they should not "show solidarity with a mysterious, sinless, but also bodiless catacomb." The enemies of True Orthodoxy and defenders of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate were quick to take advantage of these phrases for their own propagandistic purposes, reporting them under such headlines as No "Catacomb" Church. [1] It would indeed benefit greatly the progress of renovationist "Orthodoxy" if it could be "proved"— or at least shouted loudly enough—that there is no "Catacomb Church" in Russia, that the only Orthodoxy in the USSR is the renovated Sergianist version of it presented to the world by the Moscow Patriarchate, which indeed, Solzhenitsyn believes, is not at all "fallen" but is the real Orthodox Church of Russia. These statements of Solzhenitsyn raise important questions of two kinds: of fact, and of theology.

To be sure, at the beginning of his Letter Solzhenitsyn writes: "Realizing my unpreparedness for stepping out on an ecclesiastical question before a gathering of priests and hierarchs who have devoted their whole life to the service of the Church... I only beg condescension for my possible mistakes in terminology or in the very essence of my judgments"; and at the end he again apologizes: "I do not fancy myself called to decide ecclesiastical questions." It would therefore surely be no offense to Solzhenitsyn, who speaks so convincingly and truthfully on other questions, to point out, for those who wish to hear the truth, his mistakes both in fact and theology regarding the True-Orthodox Church of Russia.

These mistakes of Solzhenitsyn, as it turns out, have had one fortunate consequence: they have caused several persons who have more accurate information than he about church life in the Soviet Union to speak out and directly refute his claim that there is no "secret church organization" there:

1. One revealing glimpse of the continuing life of Russia's Catacomb Church is contained in the brief biography of the young Vladimir Osipov, editor for four years of the now-defunct Samizdat periodical Veche, which was noted for its strong nationalist and Orthodox intent, expressing the "Slavophile" position in contemporary Russia. According to an article of Alexei Kiselev, based on an interview with Anatoly Levitin (Krasnov), [2] when Osipov was in a concentration camp in the 1960's "he met a strange old man whom all the prisoners called 'Vladika.' This was Michael, a bishop of the True-Orthodox Church. He made a powerful impression on Osipov and this encounter, it may be, is what turned him to religion." This very mention of a True-Orthodox (Catacomb) Bishop in the contemporary Soviet Union, and of his influence on the young generation of religious seekers, is already an important sign for those thirsting for every scrap of information on True Orthodoxy in Russia; but fortunately, from the same Krasnov and other sources, we now have a much better idea than this of the existence of Catacomb Bishops in the Soviet Union today.

2. The monthly bulletin Religion and Atheism in the USSR (in Russian), published in Munich by N. Theodorovich, has printed portions of three letters it has received from persons of German origin who recently emigrated from the Soviet Union and who, independently of each other, have reacted to Solzhenitsyn's statements on the Catacomb Church. One of them writes:

"A. I. Solzhenitsyn has not happened to meet any members of this Church. I was with them in prison and worked together with them in a corrective-labor colony. They are deeply believing people and very firm in faith. They are persecuted for belonging to this prohibited Church."

The second writes: "'Catacomb' or 'Secret' Church is the name used here (outside of Russia). In the USSR it is called the 'True-Orthodox' or 'Tikhonite' Church. To it belong deeply-believing Orthodox people who do not recognize the official church. For this the regime persecutes them. I know many of them who are now free, but I will not give their names or places of residence."

The third writer gives a more complete description of the life of the True-Orthodox Church, whose services are sometimes conducted by monks, nuns, and laymen: "The True-Orthodox Church has a hierarchy, but the majority of it is in prison or in corrective colonies. Members of the True-Orthodox Church conduct their services according to the rituals of the Orthodox Church. If they have no priest, the services are conducted by someone who knows most about them. I know of some who have not married and have dedicated themselves to God from childhood; they also conduct services. These are, as a rule, absolutely honest people who lead a morally pure life. In the USSR members of the True-Orthodox Church are cut off from the influences of the world on their life and are absolutely dedicated to God. The greater part of the believers of the True-Orthodox Church conduct their services under ordained priests Your suppositions that the members of the True-Orthodox Church are only old people who remain from the time of the schism of 1927 brought a smile to my lips. Those whom I personally knew were born after 1927. Of course, there are also those who remember 1927. They also have non-liturgical gatherings for prayer, when they read the Holy Scripture and spiritual books. Their prayer, for the most part, amounts to petitions for the awakening of faith in the Russian people. They sometimes allow young people at their Divine services if they know that they will not betray them to the militia or the KGB. The less publicity there is about them, the better for them. But it should be known that they need books of Holy Scripture and spiritual literature." [3]

3. The most striking information about the True-Orthodox Church of Russia to be given in recent months comes from the well-known fighter for "civil rights" in the Soviet Union, Anatoly Livitin (Krasnov), who left the USSR for exile in Switzerland in September of this year. In his youth he took an active part as a Deacon in the "Living Church" schism, and even today, long after repenting and returning to the Orthodox Church, his views can only be described as extremely "liberal" and "ecumenical." His testimony of the True-Orthodox Church is all the more valuable in that he cannot be accused of any preconceived sympathy for it; for him it is a "sect," and therefore it is as deserving of as much respect and freedom as any other "sect" in the contemporary Soviet Union.

The first statement of Krasnov's that we shall quote comes from his Samizdat declaration to the Committee on Human Rights in Moscow, made on September 5, just before his departure from the Soviet Union. Here, together with his protests against the persecution of Uniats, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostalists, and Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a section on "Persecutions Against the True-Orthodox Church (TOC)." Here he writes: "This Church has been subjected to persecutions for the course of 47 years." He continues with an historical account of the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 and the protests of a number of bishops against it; of how all the bishops who took part in the "Schism of 1927" perished in the 1930's in the concentration camps; and of how they managed to ordain a number of bishops in the camps as their successors, from whom the present secret hierarchy of the True-Orthodox Church derives its existence. He continues: "The number of members of the TOC is not subject to reckoning. However, according to information received from members of this Church, it has from eight to ten bishops, about 200 priests, and several thousand laymen. The activity of the TOC is strictly persecuted. The regime fears its spread." [4]

4. Yet more detailed information on the True-Orthodox Church was given by Krasnov after his arrival in the West, where he discovered that, once again, a part of the Russian "liberal" intelligentsia was rejoicing over the "non-existence of the Catacomb Church," which this time had been "proved" by Solzhenitsyn. This is what Krasnov said in an interview with the Paris Russian weekly, La Pensee Russe (December 5, 1974, p. 5):

"As for the Catacomb Church—it exists, it is not an invention. According to my information, it has about ten bishops. These bishops have their hierarchical succession from the Josephites, the bishops who separated from Metropolitan Sergius in 1927... At the present time there are, as far as I know, perhaps twelve, perhaps eight bishops. They were all ordained in the camps by the hierarchs who were there, and all of them are developing their own activity. There are also priests. But all the same, this is a very small layer of the population. In the first place, all of this is so profoundly secret that it is very difficult to find out anything for sure. I know one nun who came to an Orthodox archimandrite in order to persuade him to go over to the 'True-Orthodox Church.' When he began to ask her more details, she replied to him: 'When you come over to us, they will tell you everything.' I know that there is an underground Metropolitan Theodosius—he is their head, and in connection with the election of Patriarch Pimen he published [in Samizdat] his own proclamation, which went about Moscow, Peter, [5] and Kiev, under the signature of 'Metropolitan Theodosius,' where in the name of the 'True-Orthodox Church' a negative attitude was declared toward the Patriarchate. In private conversations they usually say that they consider the closest current to themselves to be the Orthodox Synodal Church, the so-called 'Karlovitz' Church [the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia]. They usually say: strictly speaking we are not against the regime; we are monarchists, but we are not against the regime, inasmuch as every authority is from God. [6] They only cannot accept the hierarchy, inasmuch as it is in dependence on the atheists. Well, they consider Patriarch Tikhon their last head [i e., patriarch], which is why usually in the camps they are called 'Tikhonites.' It should be said that their adherents are usually old people, or those released from the camps. Their Divine services usually occur in private apartments, and at these secret Liturgies three or four people are present.... The True-Orthodox Church hides itself too much in the underground; it has the character of something so secret, so mysterious, that literally no one can find it; although, to be sure, one cannot refuse to respect these people who are very firm, very sincere."

EVEN BEFORE THIS it was not possible to deny at least the existence of Catacomb True-Orthodox Christians in Russia, about whom even the Soviet press speaks; and now no objective observer can well deny the existence of their "secret church organization," either. Solzhenitsyn's "facts" in the matter are clearly mistaken; his very position in the Soviet Union as a world-famous writer constantly under the close watch of the Secret Police has effectively insulated him against contact with the secret life of the True-Orthodox Church.

Even when his mistaken facts have been corrected, however, the main contention of Solzhenitsyn remains: Orthodox Christians of the West, he believes, should not show solidarity with perhaps some thousands (or tens of thousands) of Catacomb Christians, but rather with the "many millions" of the "real Russian Orthodox people." To justify this position he hazards a bold ecclesiological statement (of whose full implications he is doubtless unaware): "The sins of submission and betrayal allowed by the hierarchs have lain as an earthly and heavenly responsibility upon these leaders, but they do not extend to the church body, to the numerous conscientious priests, to the mass of those who pray in the churches—and they can never be transmitted to the church people; the whole history of Christianity persuades us of this. If the sins of the hierarchs were relayed to the faithful, the Church of Christ would not be eternal and invincible, but would depend entirely on the accidents of character and conduct."

Here Solzhenitsyn doubtless speaks for all those who defend and justify the Moscow Patriarchate, and if he were speaking only of the personal sins of hierarchs, he would be speaking the truth. But the Catacomb hierarchs and faithful have not in the least separated from the Moscow Patriarchate because of the personal sins of its hierarchs—but rather because of their apostasy from Christ, which does indeed involve not merely the hierarchs, but also the whole of the Church's faithful.

Let us here make clear several points, because the proponents of a "liberal" Orthodox theology and ecclesiology have so clouded the issue with their emotional arguments that it has become very difficult to see things clearly and calmly as they actually are.

Let it be said first of all that those, whether in Russia or outside, who accuse the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate not of any personal sins, but of apostasy, do not in the least "curse" or condemn the simple people who go to the open churches in the Soviet Union, nor the conscientious priests who serve as well as they can under the inhuman pressures exerted by the Communist Government, nor even the betraying hierarchs themselves; people who say this are, purely and simply, slandering the position of the True-Orthodox Christians. While considering the clergy and faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate as participants in apostasy and schism, True-Orthodox Christians view them with sympathy and love, but also speak the truth about them and refuse to participate in their deeds or have communion in prayer and sacraments with them, leaving their judgment to the future free All-Russian Council, when and if God should grant that it might be convened. In previous Councils like this in the history of the Church, those most guilty for schism have been punished, while the innocent followers of schism have been forgiven and restored to communion with the Church (as indicated in the Epistle of St. Athanasius the Great to Rufinianus).

Secondly, True-Orthodox Christians do not at all regard the Moscow Patriarchate simply as "fallen" and its followers as equal to heretics or pagans. There are degrees of schism and apostasy, and the fresher is the break with the true Church of Christ, and the more it has been caused by outward rather than inward causes—the greater is the possibility for the eventual restoration of the fallen-away body to the Church. True-Orthodox Christians, for the sake of the purity of Christ's Church,must remain separate from the schismatic body and thereby show it the way of return to the True Church of Christ.

Solzhenitsyn speaks, not with the voice of Christian truth, but only with the voice of human common sense

Solzhenitsyn speaks, not with the voice of Christian truth, but only with the voice of human common sense, when he writes in his Letter: "The majority of people are not saints, but ordinary men. Both faith and the Divine services are called to accompany their usual life, and not to demand every time a super-heroic act." Yes, it is true: True-Orthodox Christians today are the heroes of Orthodoxy in Russia, and the whole history of Christ's Church is the history of the triumph of Christ's heroes. "Ordinary" people follow the heroes, not vice versa. The standard is heroism, not "ordinary life." The confession of the True-Orthodox Church is absolutely indispensable for the "ordinary" Orthodox Christians of Russia today, if they hope to remain Orthodox and not go further on the path of apostasy.

Finally, the True-Orthodox Church of Russia, as far as we know, has made no official proclamation as to the Grace, or lack of it, of the Sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Individual hierarchs of the Catacomb Church in the past have expressed different opinions on this subject, some actually allowing the reception of Holy Communion from a Sergianist priest when in danger of death, and others insisting on the new Baptism of those baptized by Sergianist clergy. This question could be decided only by a Council of Bishops. If the schism of the Moscow Patriarchate is only temporary, and if it will eventually be restored to communion with the True-Orthodox Church in a free Russia, then this question may never need to be officially decided at all. Individual cases of True-Orthodox Christians in Russia receiving or not receiving Holy Communion in Sergianist churches do not, of course, establish any general rule or decide the question. The strict rule of the Russian Church Outside of Russia forbidding her members from receiving Sacraments from clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate is not founded on any statement that these Sacraments lack Grace, but rather on the sacred testament of Metropolitan Anastassy and other great hierarchs of the Diaspora forbidding any kind of communion with the Patriarchate as long as its leaders betray the Faith and are in submission to atheists.

Now that these points have been made clear, let us return to the belief of Solzhenitsyn and all the defenders of the Moscow Patriarchate that the betrayal of her hierarchs does not affect the Church's faithful. This view is based on an entirely false view of the nature of the Church which artificially separates the hierarchs from the believing people and allows "church life as normal" to go on no matter what happens to the Church leaders. On the contrary, the whole history of the Church of Christ persuades us of the exact opposite. Who else was it but the Bishops of Rome who led the Church of the West into apostasy and schism and heresy? Is it the fault of ordinary believing Roman Catholics that they, the largest group of "Christians" in the world, are today outside the Church of Christ, and that in order to return to the true Church they must not only reject the false doctrines of Rome, but also completely reform their religious mentality and unlearn the false piety which has been transmitted to them precisely by their bishops? Today, it is true, the Moscow Patriarchate allows Roman Catholics to receive its Sacraments and implicitly already teaches the ecumenist doctrine that these Catholics too are "part of the Church." But this fact only shows how far the Moscow Patriarchate has departed from the universal Orthodox tradition of the Church into an erroneous ecclesiology, and how correct the True-Orthodox Church is in refusing to have communion with an ecclesiastical body which not only allows its policies to be dictated by atheists, but openly preaches the modern heresies of ecumenism and chiliasm. If normal Orthodox Church life is not restored to Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate will follow the path of Roman Catholicism and eventually wither and die in apostasy, and the innocent people who follow it will find themselves beyond any doubt outside the Church of Christ. And then it will only be those who are one with the True-Orthodox Christians of Russia who will still be in the Church's saving enclosure.

Solzhenitsyn and the Russian intelligentsia in general, whether inside or outside Russia, are obviously quite unaware of the real crisis of Orthodoxy today. It is, of course, in itself a good thing to boldly challenge the inhuman Soviet tyranny, to speak up for the oppressed, to call for "moral renewal" and preach "not living by lies": but this is not yet Orthodox Christianity, this is not what the Christian martyrs died for and the Orthodox confessors suffered for. Baptists are doing this much today in the Soviet Union, as also are well-meaning agnostics and atheists; but this does not make them belong to the Church of Christ. In general one may say that the unparalleled sufferings of contemporary Russia have caused many of us to be rather too loose with our use of the words "martyr" and "confessor". These words have a specific meaning for Orthodox Christians: they refer to those who consciously suffer and die for Christ and His True Church, not for "humanity" or "Christianity in general" or even for "Orthodoxy" if it is not true Orthodoxy.

The real crisis of Orthodoxy today—not only in Russia but throughout the world—has not been caused by submission to orders from atheists, and it will not be overcome by refusing to accept these orders. The crisis of Orthodoxy lies in the loss of the savor of True Christianity. This savor has been largely lost not only by the Moscow hierarchs, but by most of the Russian "dissidents" as well, as likewise by the "Paris" school of émigré theologians, by the apostate Patriarch of Constantinople and all who follow him, by new calendarists and renovationists and modernists of every sort, and by the simple people everywhere who imagine they are Orthodox because their fathers were or because they belong to a "canonical church organization." Against this loss of the savor of Orthodoxy there has arisen one great movement of protest in the 20th-century: that of the True-Orthodox Christians whether of Russia, Greece, Mount Athos, or the Orthodox Diaspora. Among these True-Orthodox Christians are to be found the authentic Orthodox confessors and martyrs of our times.

A veritable "unity-fever" has gripped emigrant circles in recent months, partly under the influence of Solzhenitsyn. Solzhenitsyn himself wants to be "one" with the millions of ordinary Orthodox believers in Russia, and with all Russian Orthodox believers abroad. May God grant that he be one with them in the Truth. But if it be not in the Truth, but by means of some compromise in the Truth—such unity is abhorrent to God and His Holy Church; better for Russia to perish than to be "one" not in the Truth. The great confessors of Orthodox history have been precisely those who rose up against false unity, preferring, if necessary, to be alone against the world if only they might be with Christ and His Truth. Let us take only one example.

The Church of Christ knows no greater champion than St. Maximus the Confessor, to whom the partisans of "church unity" offered all the same arguments that are offered today to the True-Orthodox Christians who refuse to be in communion with those "Orthodox" who have left the path of piety and truth. Of St. Maximus only two things were asked: that he accept a compromise statement of faith (the "Typos") and receive communion with the Patriarchs and bishops who accepted it. The emissaries of the Byzantine Emperor explained to St. Maximus that "the Typos does not deny the two wills in Christ, but only obliges one to be silent about them for the sake of the peace of the Church"; they told him "have in your heart whatever faith you want, no one forbids you this"; they accused him of causing disturbance in the Church out of his stubbornness: "You alone are grieving everyone, for it is precisely because of you that many wish not to have communion with the local Church"; they threw in his face the favorite argument of "Christian liberals" of all times: "You mean that you alone are being saved and everyone else is damned?" and they culminated their argument with the appeal so powerful today: you will be left behind, for not only have all the Eastern Patriarchs accepted the Typos, even the emissaries of the Pope of Rome, the last Orthodox Patriarch then in the world—"tomorrow, Sunday, will receive communion of the Holy Mysteries with the Patriarch of Constantinople." And to this St. Maximus, a simple monk who for all he knew might be the only Christian left to believe as he did, replied in words that should be written in gold for every True-Orthodox Christian today to read: "Even if the whole world should receive communion with the Patriarch, I will not." All of this is stated quite clearly in the Life of St. Maximus (Lives of Saints, Jan. 21); but those who have lost the savor of Orthodoxy seldom read the lives of Saints, and if they do they most certainly do not base their lives on this primary source of true Orthodox Christianity.

A typical result of the anti-Orthodox mentality which St. Maximus combated may be seen in the newest attempt of the Russian Metropolia in America to destroy the confessing stand of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Solzhenitsyn in this same Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Sobor had expressed his discouragement at finding church disunity in the Russian Diaspora, and the Bishops of the Sobor expressed their willingness once more to seek unity with the American Metropolia and the Paris Exarchate—it being understood that this unity must be in the Truth and not by means of any compromise. With regard to the Metropolia, a chief obstacle to unity lies, of course, in the "autocephaly" it received in 1970 from the Moscow Patriarchate at the price of acknowledging to the world the complete "canonicity" and "Orthodoxy" of the Sergianist church organization. In an exchange of letters with the Metropolia, Metr. Philaret took due note of this obstacle, to which Metr. Ireney of the Metropolia replied: "In the Church there have always been disagreements, disputes, and searchings.... Let it be that we think differently about the path and aim of the Church in America, that we think differently about our participation in the battle for Christ's righteousness in the world and in the suffering Russian land. Is all this really capable of violating our unity in Christ?... We offer nothing impossible... we offer only a renunciation of the prohibition from visiting each other's churches, praying together, and receiving the Holy Mysteries together."

Indeed, such a small step! Just as in the days of St. Maximus the Confessor, let us "have in our heart whatever faith we want," but "be silent about our differences for the sake of the peace of the Church." We can each interpret "Christ's righteousness" as we please—a privilege we share with Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many others! With what "mercy" and "love" this offer of "eucharistic communion" is made, in the interest of bringing back the Russian Church Outside of Russia into communion with "world Orthodoxy" —that apostate "Orthodoxy" which has lost the savor of Christianity—and deprive it precisely of solidarity with the True-Orthodox Church of Russia. The devil himself could not have devised a slyer, more "innocent" temptation, which plays so strongly on the emotions and on humanitarian motives.

It is therefore undoubtedly a great mercy of God that, just at the hour of this temptation, we should receive reliable information, not only about the "secret church organization" of the True-Orthodox Church in Russia, but even about her chief hierarch, Metropolitan Theodosius. To be sure, the "Orthodox" wolves in sheep's clothing will continue to take cruel advantage of the fact that those who do know more about the Catacomb Church, whether in Russia or abroad, will of coursenot reveal it so as not to betray the True-Orthodox Christians in any way. Even if the Catacomb Church did not exist at all, the Moscow Patriarchate would still be guilty of schism and apostasy, even as Roman Catholicism did not become Orthodox once the last Orthodox communities were finally wiped out in the West. But it is now surely beyond any doubt that the Catacomb Church does exist and is even to some degree organized; and so we Orthodox Christians in the free world are without any excuse if we fail to show precisely our solidarity with her and her fearless confession of God's Truth and righteousness.The True-Orthodox Church is the standard of Orthodoxy in Russia today, and it requires no "imagination" or secret information for us to know that standard and measure ourselves by it. The standard of Holy Orthodoxy does not change; if we ourselves are struggling to be True-Orthodox Christians we are living by the same standard as the True-Orthodox Church of Russia. The True-Orthodox Christians of Greece already know this quite well, for their struggle is very similar to that in Russia; it is only we of the Orthodox Diaspora who are so slow to follow their confessing path, because we have not learned from suffering as they have.

Is it not time at last, then, for the True-Orthodox Christians of the free world to raise their voices in defense of the trampled-down Truth? Is it only the persecuted Orthodox in Russia who have the courage to speak boldly against the lies and hypocrisies of the Church leaders and proclaim their separateness, on grounds of Truth and Orthodox principle, from the apostate hierarchs? As a matter of Church principle, the question is in reality the same here as there; the only difference is that in the Soviet Union the hierarchs participate in apostasy ostensibly under the dictatorship of atheists, whereas in the free world the hierarchs do the same thing freely. And if any naively hold that the Paris and American "jurisdictions" abroad are still "conservative" and are largely unaffected by the ecumenical madness of "Greek Orthodoxy," let him read the account in the Russian émigré newspaper La Pensee Rasse (Feb. 20, 1975), under the headline "Ecumenism in the Cathedral of the Paris Mother of God" (Notre-Dame de Paris), of the "grandiose ecumenical prayer-service of Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants, headed by the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Marty, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Meletios, and the representative of the Protestant Federation, Monsieur Courvoisier." Here the choir and clergy of the Paris Russian (Eulogian) Cathedral took full part in the "grandiose ecumenical prayer-service" together with the heretics (for which sin, according to the sacred canons, they must be excommunicated), and the Protodeacon "thunderously, with a mighty bass voice," read the Gospel, fully vested, after bowing to the three presiding dignitaries of the assembly, as if to Orthodox bishops. As a result, "hardly in the eight centuries of its existence has Notre-Dame Cathedral heard such a reading of the Word of God, and it is understandable that those present were shaken"—shaken by a dramatically effective voice which helped to close off salvation for those present by not daring to tell them that they are outside the Church of Christ.

The same "ecumenical" message is proclaimed by Archbishop John Shahovskoy of the American Metropolia when he begs "forgiveness" of "our Catholic and Protestant brethren" because the Russian Church Outside of Russia continues to declare the Orthodox teaching that they are unbaptized. [7]

True Orthodoxy is one and the same whether in outward freedom or outward slavery; it is free internally to preach the unchanging Truth of Christ's Church, and the questions before it are one and the same here and there: Can we be with Christ and still be one with those who disdain the ecclesiastical calendar, renovate theology and piety, legitimize the Sergianist schism, pray with heretics, and by word and act proclaim that "nothing separates us" from those most miserable and unfortunate "Christians" of the West who for centuries have not known the grace of God? Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, in his first "Sorrowful Epistle" to all Orthodox bishops in the world (1969) has already given the battle-cry for all True-Orthodox Christians against those who participate by word or act in the soul-destroying heresy of ecumenism: "We have already protested against the unorthodox ecumenical actions of Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos.... But now the time has come to make our protest heard more loudly still, and then even yet more loudly, so as to stop the action of this poison before it has become as potent as the ancient heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, or Eutychianism, which in their time so shook the whole body of the Church as to make it seem that heresy was apt to overcome Orthodoxy."

We must obey God, not men; we must remain in the unchanging Orthodox Faith, which is Divine, and not listen to the rationalistic arguments of worldly men who only wish to please each other and conform the Faith to the humanitarian spirit of the age. Let all True-Orthodox Christians in the world remain unbending in the confession of Russia's Catacomb Church, a confession whose very words the divine St. Maximus has given us:

Even if the whole world should receive communion with the apostate hierarchs, we will not. Amen.

Endnotes

1. So The Orthodox Church, official organ of the American Metropolia [now the OCA], November, 1974, p. 2.

2. Russian text in Novoye Russkaye Slovo, about Feb. 1, 1975, p. 3.

3. Religion and Atheism in the USSR, December, 1974, p. 9.

4. Religion and Atheism in the USSR, December, 1974, p 2

5. A pre-Revolutionary nickname for St. Petersburg (now "Leningrad").

6. This is probably not an accurate statement about the position of the True-Orthodox Church in Russia on this point. See the Samizdat Catacomb document "Church and Authority" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no. 3 pp. 133-135), where the Soviet regime is called an "anti-authority."

7. Novoye Russkaye Slovo, Feb. 18, 1975, p. 2.

From The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1974 (59), 235-246.

The Response to Elder Tavrion

THE LIFE of Archimandrite Tavrion published in The Orthodox Word, no. 96, evoked for the most part a positive response: readers on the whole, judging from their comments to the editors, accepted it in the way it was intended to be read—as an inspiring example of genuine Orthodox courage and spiritual life in the almost impossible conditions of Soviet life. The accompanying articles, "What Does the Catacomb Church Think?" and especially the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962," set forth a position of uncompromising non-acceptance of the betrayal of the Moscow Patriarchate and refusal to have communion with it, while at the same time showing pastoral concern for the priests and faithful who try their best to be Orthodox even in the Moscow Patriarchate, where they find themselves by force of circumstances.

Some readers, however, noting that Elder Tavrion was a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, interpreted the publication of his life as a betrayal of the Catacomb Church and as a total reversal of our [Platina -The OrtHOdoX Word editors] stand with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate; and because the life of Elder Tavrion was sent for publication by Metropolitan Philaret, together with the Metropolitan's note explaining Fr. Tavrion's attempt to stand apart from the betraying policies of the Moscow Patriarchate, some of these readers did not hesitate to express their criticism of the Metropolitan himself, as if this indicated that he and even the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia had radically changed their opinion with regard to the Russian Church situation. The disturbance created by this criticism reached the Synod of Bishops and resulted in the "Decision" on this controversy which is printed below in this issue, which reaffirms the unchanging position of the Church Outside of Russia and admonishes those who are too quick in their criticism even of their own Metropolitan.

This disturbance (which one may hope is now a thing of the past, after the authoritative statement of the Synod) has served to remind us all that the position of the Church Outside of Russia within the Russian Church as a whole is by no means correctly understood by everyone. The problem is not that this position is really very difficult to understand, but that it is all too easy to oversimplify it and to state, at one extreme, that the betrayal of Sergianism (the compromising position of the Moscow Patriarchate, which has become a slavish tool of Communist purposes) is something unimportant towards which our attitude can change with time; or, at the other extreme, that the Moscow Patriarchate is entirely fallen away from Orthodoxy and is without grace and its fate is of no more interest to us than that of any sect in Russia.

Since the cause of this disturbance was the mistaken belief that the Metropolitan, The Orthodox Word, and presumably a large part of the Church Outside of Russia had "reversed their attitude" towards the Catacomb Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, let us examine here some of the main aspects of our Church's attitude to the Russian Church situation, comparing statements from the new "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops with other authoritative statements, both within the Catacomb Church and the Church Outside of Russia, and comments made in The Orthodox Word over the years from 1965 to the present.

1. The new "Decision" of the Synod states: "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. 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.... 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."

The Orthodox Word has set forth this fundamental position of the Church Outside of Russia (which is identical to the position of the Catacomb Church) year after year. The latest expression of it, the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962," states it in the language of a Catacomb Church representative, and this expression is certainly no less strong in tone than the Catacomb document of ten years ago, "Russia and the Church Today" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no.44). The Orthodox Word in its recent article defending Fr. Dimitry Dudko repeated this position once again: "the very principle of 'Sergianism' is a betrayal of Orthodoxy, as Fr. Dimitry has said; this is why the free Russian Church Outside of Russia can have no communion with this jurisdiction.... We have no communion with his hierarchs and even with him (until he becomes free of them)" (no. 92, pp. 122, 137).

2. We have no hope that the church situation in Russia will change in any fundamental way as long as Communism is in power. This admittedly is a private opinion rather than an official position, but it is an opinion widely shared among the clergy and laymen of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, and over sixty years of experience with the Communist regime has only confirmed it. In particular, every "liberalization" in the regime's attitude towards the Church has only been a tactical device within the larger purpose of the total liquidation of the Church.

The Orthodox Word in 1966 stated:"The rescue of the Soviet Church... cannot come from within itself, and most definitely not under Soviet conditions.... Nothing is to be hoped for from any 'changes' within the USSR; the necessary precondition for the healing of the infected organism is the total overthrow of the Communist system. Only then can there be even talk of a return to normal religious life in Russia" (no. 10, p. 148).

The same thing was repeated in 1981: "The Moscow Patriarchate has not changed and undoubtedly will not change until Communism itself falls in Russia; there is no hope whatever that a return to normal Orthodox church life will occur through the official church"(no. 96, p.22).

3. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states: "The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately." Despite the uncompromisingness of our stand against the betrayal of "Sergianism," we make no "definitions" about it; in particular, our bishops have refused to make any statement that the Moscow Patriarchate is "without grace" and "fallen away" from Orthodoxy. This position has been set forth many times in The Orthodox Word in an uncompromisingly anti-Sergianist article in 1974 (no. 59, pp. 240-1).

This position is very difficult to understand for those who would like the church situation to be "simple" and "black or white." For such people it is incomprehensible how a Catacomb Church zealot like the author of the "Catacomb Epistle of 1962" could recommend that his spiritual children receive communion in a Sergianist church if they can find no Catacomb church, or how a Catacomb priest like Archimandrite Tavrion could join the official church. Not all members of the Catacomb Church, to be sure, would approve such actions: but those who do approve and practice them have in mind only the benefit of their flocks, who might otherwise be deprived entirely of church communion and fall into despair. Such practical questions, in Soviet conditions, cannot always be given categorical answers. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops notes positively that "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."

That at least a part of the Moscow Patriarchate is still regarded by the free Russian Church as not entirely having lost its Orthodoxy may be seen in the 1976 Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia, "To the Russian People in the Homeland, "where the bishops address the courageous priests both of the Catacomb Church and of the Moscow Patriarchate as genuine priests (The Orthodox Word, 1976, no. 70, p. 164). Expressing the same view, Bishop Gregory of Manhattan has written: "Those in Russia who are holding fast to Orthodoxy and preaching the truth, not submitting to the influence of outside powers,, are not merely our allies, but our brethren in one end the same Church" (Orthodox Life, 1979, no. 6, p. 40). Ten years ago The Orthodox Word remarked: "As John Dunlop has noted, on the popular level the boundary between the 'official' and the 'catacomb' Church is somewhat fluid. The writings of Boris Talantov testify to the presence of a deep division today within the Moscow Patriarchate between the 'Sergianist' hierarchy with its 'Communist Christianity' and the truly Orthodox faithful who reject this impious 'adaptation to atheism"' (1971, no. 36, p. 38).

Perhaps the best statement on this whole question comes from a leading Catacomb hierarch of the 1920's and '30's, now to be canonized as a New Martyr, Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan. In answer to the ecclesiastical legalism of Metropolitan Sergius, he wrote to him in 1929: "It amazes you that, while refraining from celebrating Liturgy with you, I nonetheless do not consider either myself or you to be outside the Church. 'For church thinking such a theory is completely unacceptable, ' you declare; 'it is an attempt to keep ice on a hot grill.' If in this case there is any attempt on my part, it is not to keep ice on a hot grill, but rather to melt away the ice of a dialectical bookish application of the canons and to preserve the sacredness of their spirit. I refrain from liturgizing with you not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be actualized at our joint celebration, but because the communion of the Chalice of the Lord would be to both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our inward attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility of offering in complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise. Therefore, the whole fullness of my refraining concerns only you and the hierarchs one in mind with you, but not the ordinary clergy, and even less laymen" (The Orthodox Word, 1977, no. 75, p. 183-4).

4. In accordance with the famous "Testament" of Metropolitan Anastassy, Chief Hierarch of the Russian Church Outside of Russia from 1936 to 1964, a final judgment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian church situation cannot be made now, but must wait for a free Church Council, which can obviously be assembled only after the fall of Communism. The last paragraph of this "Testament" states: "As for the Moscow Patriarchate and her hierarchs, inasmuch as they are in an intimate, active, and well-wishing union with the Soviet power which openly confesses its complete godlessness and strives to implant atheism in the entire Russian people, with them the Church Abroad, preserving its purity, must not have any communion whatever, whether canonically, in prayer, or even in ordinary everyday contact, at the same time giving each of them over to the final judgment of the Sobor (Council) of the future free Russian Church" (The Orthodox Word, 1970, no. 33-34, p. 239).

(Some have quoted this passage to indicate the impossibility of our having any contact whatever with priests of the Moscow Patriarchate. It should therefore be noted that Metropolitan Anastassy here points only to the "hierarchs" who are in a "well-wishing union with the Soviet power. " The priests and laymen who are bravely protesting against the "Sergianism" of the Patriarchate are clearly in a different category.)

The subject of this future free Council is one that has occupied the thoughts both of the Catacomb Church and the Church Outside of Russia ever since the Sergian Declaration of 1927. In that year Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd, the first real head of the Catacomb Church, wrote: "In separating from Metropolitan Sergius and his acts, we do not separate from our lawful Chief Hierarch, Metropolitan Peter, nor from the Council, which will meet at some time in the future, of those Orthodox hierarchs who have remained faithful. May this Council, our sole competent judge, not then hold us guilty for our boldness"(The Orthodox Word, 1971, no. 36, p. 26).

Similarly, in 1934 Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan wrote: " I firmly believe that the Orthodox Episcopate, with brotherly union and mutual support, will preserve the Russian Church, with God's help, in age-old Orthodoxy all the time of the validity of the Patriarchal Testament (of Patriarch Tikhon), and will conduct it to a lawful Council" (The Orthodox Word, 1977, no . 75, p. 189).

In 1962 the anonymous author of the "Catacomb Epistle" wrote: "We believe that if human life is to continue on earth, then some time there will gather a council which will justify our boldness and will justly evaluate the 'wise policy' of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers who wished to 'save the Church' at the price of her immaculateness and truth" (The Orthodox Word, 1981, no. 96, p. 31).

In 1970 the Catacomb authors of "Russia and the Church Today" stated: "We believe that if the world does not perish, sooner or later in liberated Russia there will be a Local Council of our Church, to which the fruits of their labors and exploits for the long period without a Council. . . will be brought forth by the Moscow Patriarchate and by the persecuted Russian ‘Catacomb' Church, to which the authors of this article belong" (The Orthodox Word, 1972, no. 44. p. 132).

And in 1971 The Orthodox Word, commenting on the writings of Boris Talantov, nosed that they "will doubtless be used as testimony at that longed-for Council of the entire free Russian Church, including the Churches of the Catacombs and of the Diaspora, that will finally judge the situation created by the Communist Yoke and Sergianism" (no. 36, p. 38).

5. The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states: "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... 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."

And in fact, the interest and sympathy which the Church Outside of Russia as a whole has shown to such priests as Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite Tavrion is by no means a thing of the past few years. This interest and sympathy has been reflected in the pages of The Orthodox Word from the very first year of its existence.

The third issue of The Orthodox Word in l965 published an "Appeal" from believers of the Moscow Patriarchate in Pochaev. A number of suffering clergy of the Patriarchate are mentioned, with a special description of "Abbot Joseph... a great man of prayer and our spiritual and bodily physician" (p. 109). This same "Appeal" states that "the Orthodox Church is in great danger. . . Only the Pochaev monks and a small number of the clergy stand firmly for the apostolic traditions and don't give in an inch to the Antichrist" (pp. 110-111). The editorial comment at the end of this "Appeal" stated: "One must choose: to support, in any way, the puppets of Communism, who serve the ultimate aim of the complete liquidation of religion; or to stand with the persecuted believers" (here, specifically of the Moscow Patriarchate) "who have dared to tell the world what is really happening today behind the Iron Curtain" (p. 114).

The next issue of The Orthodox Word in 1965 contained a favorable description of a "Brotherhood of Orthodox Youth" composed of "sons and daughters of the Orthodox Church" which acts because the clergy is not free, but "without making any attempt against the canonical authority of the hierarchs" (no . 4, p . 159) .

In 1971 a large part of two issues of The Orthodox Word was devoted to the life and writings of Boris Talantov, a layman of the Moscow Patriarchate who mercilessly exposed the betrayal of Sergianism even while believing that the Catacomb Church, while fully Orthodox, was a "sect. " In the title of one article about him he is called an "Orthodox confessor," and in the article he is presented as "an inspiring example of Christian courage against overwhelming obstacles" and "a fearless confessor of the holy Orthodox faith" (1971, no. 36, p. 35). Like Fr. Dimitry Dudko, Talantov believed that "because of the corruption end betrayal of the bishops the believers should not disperse to their homes and organize separate sects, but rather preserving unity, they should begin the accusation by the whole people of the corrupt false pastors and cleanse the Church of them" (1971, no. 41, p. 292).

In these years, despite such support shown for courageous members of the Moscow Patriarchate, there were no Protests at all against these articles in The Orthodox Word. The articles in recent years on Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Archimandrite Tavrion, and remarks on other courageous priests of the Moscow Patriarchate, are only a continuation of these earlier articles.

Perhaps the most eloquent expression of the sympathy of the free Russian Church for the struggling priests within the Moscow Patriarchate who have spoken out against Sergianism is the statement addressed to them by the Sobor of Bishops of the whole Russian Church Outside of Russia in 1976, in their Epistle "To the Russian People in the Homeland": "We kiss the Cross which you also have taken upon yourself, O pastors who have found the courage and the power of spirit to be open accusers of the faint heartedness of your hierarchs who have capitulated to the atheists, to be fearless gatherers and instructors of those who seek spiritual food—first of all young people. We know of your exploit, we read about you, we read what you have written, we pray for you and ask your prayers for our flock in the Diaspora. Christ is in our midst! He is and shall be!

"The life of the Church continues even under the pressure of atheism, often taking, thanks to the pressure and violence, forms unusual in peaceful circumstances, breaking out through the bonds and chains into the freedom of spirit and the victory of the children of God! With love we follow this process in our Homeland and rejoice over it" (The Orthodox Word, 1976, no . 70, p . 164).

The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops notes that the criticism evoked by the "Elder Tavrion" Article involved "especially those who are not very familiar with the conditions of church life in the USSR." Such critics have failed to notice, as the "Decision" also says, that "the situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can be prescribed by any one of us separately." The attempt to fit the Russian church situation into some standard canonical "norm" that will enable one to dismiss the Moscow Patriarchate entirely as a formal "schism" or even "heresy"—is a mistake.

The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops is a welcome correction of this mistake and is a clear sign to us that in these perilous days our Orthodoxy must not become something narrow, negative, and critical. We must temper the overlogicalness of our Western mentality (which has formed all of us in the modern world, whether we realize it or not) with a loving, pastoral concern for all those who still wish to be Orthodox, despite the terrible conditions of our times and even the outright betrayal of many hierarchs.

A young priest of the Greek Archdiocese in America, before his tragic death several years ago, once called The Orthodox Worda "conscience of Orthodoxy" today. This is precisely what the Russian Church Outside of Russia could and should be for the Orthodox world today. This church body has maintained its existence now for sixty years in a Russian church situation that is entirely abnormal and in some respects unprecedented in church history. It has done so by means of a kind of church "instinct" which has not betrayed it, end which allows it to maintain its separateness from the betrayal of a large part of the Orthodox Church leadership today without losing contact with the still living conscience of the sound part of the Orthodox clergy and faithful in many jurisdictions.

This church instinct is by no means blind, but is quite capable of discerning mistaken attitudes even in the suffering faithful for whom our Church is at pains to show such support. Thus, in en open letter to Father Gleb Yakunin, a courageous and self-sacrificing priest now suffering ecclesiastical suspension and cruel imprisonment in Russia for his defense of believers' rights, Metropolitan Philaret not long ago found it necessary to point out this priest's mistaken support for the Roman Catholic religious literature being sent into Russia, poisoned as it is by false teaching and heresy (Orthodox Russia, June 28, 1979, pp. 1-2).

Likewise, The Orthodox Word in 1966 criticized the false "ecumenical" and "Berdyaevan" views of the famous open letters of the two Moscow priests (no. 10, pp. 145-148). Such criticism, it is true, must be charitable and take into account the poverty of the Orthodox literature available in Russia; one very conservative emigre, Eugene Vagin, has pointed out that often pseudo-Orthodox writings like those of Berdyaev are almost all that is available to a sincere Orthodox searcher, and the mistakes such a searcher might make under their influence can be corrected later on by exposure to sounder Orthodox texts. In our freedom, we are able to help with this process of correction, but we must do so with patience and love, especially bearing in mind that we in the West are exposed to the ravages of a different spiritual infirmity—the Western passion for over-logicalness and "super-correctness" which makes us want to "define" church matters more precisely than our abnormal conditions will allow.

In such conditions we should keep more often in mind the prophetic words of the last testament of Metropolitan Benjamin of Petrograd (martyred in 1922): "Now we must put off our learning and self-opinion and give way to grace." It is this grace, and not our calculations and definitions of it, that has preserved the Russian Church in this frightful century of its worst trial, and it is nothing else that will yet preserve it until the calling of the free Council that one day, as we all hope, will at last bring peace and order to church life.

From The Orthodox Word, May-June 1981 (98), 123-136.

+ + +

The Decision of the Synod of Bishops

The following document is printed at the request of the Synod of Bishops and Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco. The editors of The Orthodox Word are entirely in agreement with it and pray that it will cause an end to discord in the Church.

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. 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 II of St. Athanasius), and bearing in mind the words of our Saviour that by a hasty judgment one might root up the wheat along with the tares (Matt. 13:29). 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. 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 judgment 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 while 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 life 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 "Judgment belonging to metropolitans" (Canon XIII of the First-and-Second Council).

Everyone must be very careful in his criticism, particularly when expressing it publicly, remembering that "Judgment and justice take hold on thee"(Job 36:17). If, contrary to the apostolic teaching about hierarchical 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 cost thou make thyself a shepherd when thou art a sheep? Why become a head when thou art a foot? Why cost 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 forty days.

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.

From "The Catacomb Tikhonite Church, 1974: First Public Information in the West Concerning", by Metropolitan Theodosius, Chief Hierarch of the True-Orthodox Church of Russia (The Orthodox Word, Nov.-Dec., 1974, 240-241).

from: Not Of This World, pages 865-867

... With his basically non-partisan approach, Fr. Seraphim was not to be spared in the the fall of 1981, one final run-in with the super-correct, super-partisan ecclesiology. This time even the chief hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret, unwittingly got involved. In September he had written to the Brotherhood:

Dear Fr. Herman,

I am sending you material for printing ... about the last elder of Glinsk Hermitage, Archimandrite Tavrion. According to the information I have, this wise and pious elder belonged at first to the Catacomb Church; but seeing the believing people were scattered like sheep without a shepherd, he joined the official church, but in his activity stood absolutely apart from it, giving all his strength to the spiritual guidance of believing souls.

May God help you. Peace be to you and the brethren.

With love,

Metropolitan Philaret

As it turned out, what the Metropolitan had sent was a tremendously inspiring document, showing true Church life in Russia in the midst of almost impossible Soviet conditions, and a righteous loving clairvoyant Elder who was very much in the spirit of the Elders of Optina. Interestingly, Elder Tavrion, who had reposed only two years before in 1978, had shown great love for Fr. Dimitry Dudko saying, "Fr. Dimitry has such a simple, child-like faith that God has chosen him to be a confessor. There's nothing to fear."

At the same time there were several other such inspiring manuscripts about contemporary righteous ones being secretly written and circulated in Russia, but most of these -- save for what was published in samizdat by the confessor Zoly Krakhalnikova -- never made it to the west before Russia became [supposedly] free again. On receiving such a rare, up-to-date document, therefore, the Platina fathers lost no time in publishing it. And to quell any objections from the super-correct wing about their publishing the life of a catacomb priest who later served in the MP, they accompanied it with Metropolitan Philaret's cover letter, as well as two documents from the Catacomb Church.

Far from warding off disturbances, however, the Metropolitan's letter raised a cry of indignation from those on the far right, who could hardly believe that their own Metropolitan could call someone in the MP a "wise and pious elder." This time the super-corrrectparty started a whole campaign, with petitions sent out for everyone to sign, and an official delegation sent to protest at the Metropolitan's residence in New York. The petition stated that the photograph of and article on Archimandrite Tavrion which the Metropolitan had sent "serve as Soviet propaganda to mitigate our attitude toward Soviet clergy and the Soviet Church by showing us that there are in fact 'wise and pious elders' who are part of the Soviet Church... Our bishops must come together and make a public statement with regard to this grave matter. The editors of The Orthodox Word ned to rectify the damage done by retracting their statements and printing a statement of our Synod of Bishops on this most important mater."

One of the super-correct priests, Fr. Seraphim noted, "is trying to force our old Russian parishioners to write letters of protest to the Metropolitan, and the poor old ladies don't understand what it's all about! What a narrow strait jacket of logic they want to force us into, and how little it suits the real needs of the Orthodox mission today... [They] are just not 'where it's at' -- they're fighting windmills with their jesuit logic and justifying their own 'purity,' while what's needed is loving and aware hearts to help the suffering and searching and bring them to Christ." In another letter Fr. Seraphim called this kind of Christianity "Alice-in-Wonderland Orthodoxy."

The Metropolitan and other bishops felt called upon to put an end to the disturbance by issuing a "Decision," which stated that we cannot ignore any positive events in Russia, including those occurring within the MP. This was published in The Orthodox Word along with an article by Fr. Seraphim, "The Response to Elder Tavrion," which demonstrated that The Orthodox Word had not changed it's position regarding the Church situation in Russia. The articles on Fr. Dimitry Dudko and Elder Tavrion, Fr. Seraphim pointed out, were only a continuation of earlier articles -- beginning with the third issue -- on positive events occurring with the MP, in spite of the compromises of its bishops.

Fr. Seraphim's quick and thorough defense of Fr. Dimitry and Elder Tavrion may seem surprising, coming as it did from one who, as we have seen, preferred to avoid church disputes. Even his own novice Gregory, who had arrived at the St. Herman Monastery during the "Tavrion incident," recalls being at first scandalized by Fr. Seraphim's seeming obsession with such issues. "We're Americans," Gregory thought. "Why does he have to get so caught up in something that only concerns Russia?!"

Later Br. Gregory understood: The defense of Elder Tavrion was a defense of the true spirit of Christianity against the mere letter. But there was even more involved. The phenomenon of Elder Tavrion and others like him testified that Holy Russia had not disappeared, that it would resurrect. And the resurrection of Russia, as Fr. Seraphim stated many times, would not affect Russia alone: upon it depended the fate of the whole world ...

Email Exchange

2010-07-15T14:04:00.002-05:00

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:46:17 +0300
Subject: On "the royal path"
From: ekklisiastikos@gmail.com
To: joannahigginbotham@live.com

Dear sister,

there is not "a royal path" or a "middle way" on dogmatic and confessional matters. Only such matters are black and white (not gray..)

The "Royal Path" is, as far as we know, first spoken of in the Second Conference of Abba Moses, found in the Conferences of St. John Cassian, regarding Discretion (Diakrisis). Abba Moses speaks of the royal path of moderation in ascetical exercise - fasting, vigils, etc. As far as we know, the Fathers never applied this concept to the dogmas or to dealing with denial of the dogmas (heresy), because Truth, unlike prudent ascetical activity, is not a mean between extremes. To apply this to our times: Orthodoxy is not a mean between ecumenism and dogmatic truth, nor is there a mean between being in the Church and being out of the Church.

As for the Ecumenists, they are doing their best to have themselves out of the Church and you (i.e. ROCOR-A, SiR etc) stubbornly want them inside the Church. Don't you see that Bartholomeos and the rest prefer the heresy than the pure dogmas of genuine Orthodoxy? The "sitting on the fence" ecclesiology of Kyprianos Koutsoubas, no matter how hard he tried to promote it as the the "middle way", it was a only an excuse for his obviously unreasonable schism.

With all due respect, we consider "Agathagelites" seriously misinformed.

--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com

From:	Joanna Higginbotham (joannahigginbotham@live.com)
Sent:	Thu 7/15/10 11:03 AM
To:	ekklisiastikos@gmail.com

Dear Ekklisiastikos,

I agree with you that the Royal Path is not a "middle ground", it is actually a HIGHER way. If the right tries to see it by looking directly to the left, they miss it or see right through it. You have to also look UP, and with the help of God. A perfect Church can not be found on earth - only in heaven.

The indisputable indication that something is not right with the super-correct logic is this: There is grace in the SIR. I cannot deny this since I experienced it myself. It is so thick you can cut it with a knife. By super-correct logic there can be no grace in SIR. So even if super-correct logic seems logical, something is wrong with it for it to come to that conclusion. Grace is not what needs to realize that it should not be there - instead the super-correct logic needs to realize it has made a wrong turn somewhere. It ends up denying that grace is where it is: in the SIR.

Others have also experienced this same grace in ROCA-A since the union, which was being strangled out of ROCOR prior to the union. I'm referring to the same grace that was perceived years ago when serving with Met. Philaret, it is again returned as the same familiar and unmistakable grace.

It is this grace that the SIR and the ROCA-A recognize in each other. This is the cause for our bond - not some "need" to make another bishop. [God provides for His Church, He will also provide bishops.] Our critic from ekklistiastikos.com, Fr. Steven Allen, misses the mark when he says we "claim" to be the sole valid continuation of ROCOR - it can be called a "claim" only after the fact. After there was first a recognition - we recognize ROCA-A as the sole valid continuation of ROCOR. Not because of a "claim" - this bold claim is a result of a recognition which came first.

Our aim is not to just "recreate" the old ROCOR, our aim is to go forward with God's Church. The way things are now, and I pray for this to be preserved, our Sister Churches are right in step with us.

How good it would be if you could join us!

love, Joanna Higginbotham

  

The super-correct seem to have a compulsion to argue legalistically. Because of the lawyer-like arguing and debating mentality of the super-correct, there is no sense trying to use logic with them - they just twist it to suit their conclusions. This is why I do not argue - I just say to them: "Sorry, I experience grace where you say there is none - so something is wrong with what you say." I do not try to pick apart exactly what it is that is wrong. [That's for them to figure out - they are the smart ones, right?] What comes next then is they do not accept my experience as valid - they say I have no argument. In that they are right. I won't argue. I don't have to.

The Argument Is 0ver

2010-04-17T11:51:00.000-05:00

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:09:09 -0700

To: sgpm@sisqtel.net

From: fra@ctosonline.org

COPY OF AN EXCHANGE, FYI. Mostly trash but often blowing in the wind.

Your Imminence. Truly He is risen. I hate to bother you with this stuff again but it comes up and I always want to be able to answer it. X got all this it from Y who's a loud mouth and behind a lot of the stuff I hear. Sorry again. It's made its way around.

*** *** ***

I saw the Saint Gregory Palmas' site and it doesn't answer the questions. They can't. We consider Kyprianos and his bishops heretics because of what we have said and they can't answer:

Kyprianos was deposed by the State Church of Greece for reasons that have never been made public and which made his spiritual father Elder Philtheos split from him and both Kyprianos and Chrysostomos of Etna were deposed by the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II of Athens, the only canonical synod of the old calendar in Greece. Monk Kyprianos was reduced to a monk for heresy and ecumenism and changing his church views for political reasons, and Mr. Chrysostomos was deposed for being made a bishop even though he was married and for claiming college degrees that are bogus. They were tried and convicted when they refused to appear before the Spiritual Court of the Most Holy Synod.

The resistors synod in Bulgaria is also run by a married bishop who was deposed.

Auxentios of Fotikis became Orthodox without being baptized and is said tohave a criminal background.

Ambrose of Mathone is a self-admitted Jew and is also known to be without an orthodoxbaptism..

SO THE ARGUMENT'S OVER. If ou belong to the socalled resistors synod then you're also a heretic and your bishops are either uncanonical and not Orthodox or are Jews.

*** *** ***

Dear X,

Christ is Risen!

God bless you.

Bishop Auxentios asked me to handle this matter as I sought fit, after it was passed on to him by Archbishop Chrysostomos. I will answer harshly but keeping in mind that this is all the product of disturbed and sick persons who are in a certain way pumped up by controversy at the fringes of the Church. Since we are marginalized by the ecumenists and modernists, we are there for these ill people to see and to attack. This is an extremely sad thing because they succeed with their loudness in drowning out what we aim at.

First you should point out to your friend that the St. Gregory Palamas Monastery does not have a website, which explains why his correspondent could not find answers to the "questions" to which he refers. The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies has a website, but it is dedicated to our scholarly work and publications.

This latest nonsense has made its way around the Orthodox world for years. It contains what are in fact criminally libelous accusations if the cowards who are spreading them will simply put them in print and attach their names.

For the umpteenth time:

- Metropolitan Cyprian was a highly respected clergyman in the New Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece. The monastic community that he headed was considered exemplary. Out of conscience, he separated from the Hierarchy of that Church on account of its ecumenical activities, innovation, and what he saw as its deviations from Orthodox standards. He did so quietly, politely, and without condemning his former Hierarchs personally. He was received into the Old Calendar movement as a clergyman. He has also held to the very same ecclesiological confession since that time, despite the vagaries of the extremist old Calendarists, who came to deny Grace in the New Calendar Church of Greece and who have separated into factions and warring groups.

- Metropolitan Cyprian entered into the Old Calendar movement with the blessing of his Elder, the Blessed and renowned Elder Philotheos (Zervakos), who praised him in writing for his courageous move. No private charges were ever made against Metropolitan Cyprian, who was simply accused of "Old Calendarism" by the State Church of Greece when he left. Father Philotheos made it clear that any act of administrative revenge against Metropolitan Cyprian had no meaning and that, in accusing him of Old Calendarism, they would likewise have to accuse all of the Fathers of the Church who defended the Church Calendar.

- Neither Metropolitan Cyprian nor Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna ever belonged to the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens, whose Synod was formed in 1985. Nor has Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, who was a widower and university professor before becoming a monk, ever met Archbishop Chrysostomos II. Moreover, neither was ever summoned to any spiritual court to answer absurdly stupid charges from a Synod of Bishops to which neither, as I said, ever belonged and which has absolutely no authority to do so and who jeopardize their own credibility by claiming such authority. By the way, they also claim to have authority over all of Orthodoxy and all of the Orthodox Patriarchates, whom they have proclaimed to be outside the Church and without Grace! Incomprehensible.

_ Bishop Photii of Bulgaria was also married and an assistant professor at the University of Sofia, before becoming a monk, as have been many Orthodox hierarchs, including the late Patriarch Alexey of Moscow, whose wife attended his funeral. His Eminence, a superb scholar and a man of incredible scholarly and personal repute, was formed by the spiritual children of St. Seraphim of Sofia, Archimandrites Seraphim and Sergius (also both professors at the University of Sofia) and by the late Abbess Seraphima (the former Princess Olga of the Protection Convent in Sofia.

- Bishop Auxentios of Photiki, a convert to Orthodoxy and a former student at Princeton University of both Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna (who was teaching there while finishing his doctoral degree) and the late Father Georges Florovsky (who taught in the department of religion at Princeton), was baptized in Astoria, NY, at the Cathedral of St. Markella by the well-known Bishop Petros of Astoria and his brother, Archimandrite Niphon. At the time, Bishop Petros adhered to the very same ecclesiology as the Holy Synod in Resistance, though in 1985, having been independent for a number of years, he joined the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos II.

- Bishop Ambrose of Methone, whose father was a Scotsman and whose mother was indeed Jewish (though not a practicing Jew), comes from a very prominent and distinguished British family. He was baptized when he converted to the Orthodox Church.

You have heard the lies, now you have read the truth as we have made it known over and over. If my own retelling of the truth in the face of unrelenting lies seems to have a tone of impatience, my impatience is, quite frankly, simply an expression of my astonishment that liars are so persistent even when they are caught lying, and that those producing this nonsense are so consistently silly.

Those who have no real defense for their beliefs and simply refuse to admit that we are fully Orthodox in ours should simply remain quiet. Hitler was wrong in thinking that if you tell a lie long enough that people will believe it. If you tell a lie long enough, and especially when the truth has been told over and over in answer to your lies, people will in fact eventually conclude that you are quite simply a liar.

I personally see jealousy of our Synod of our Bishops behind a lot of what is said by these people who somehow get your attention. You should give them my statement and ignore them. You should also pray for them. They are sick.

There Is None That Watcheth Out For My Soul

2009-12-29T16:49:00.001-06:00

This essay by Archbishop Chrysostomos can help the super-correct to understand us and helps to explain the Royal Path.

Evlogeite. As usual, externally compelling and intelligent, and not without some valid points (albeit validity in a typically curious and questionable context). From under the covers of theology and history, I must point out that there peep the following:

1) I have heard this refrain too often: "How dare the Church act without doing what I want. It must do so because it is motivated to reject the Royal Priesthood." Unfortunately, the idea of universalism in the priesthood deteriorates into Protestant-like chaos, when abused. It is as dangerous as it is essential and important. When Father Florovsky was asked about his claim that the people could even remove a Bishop, for example, he quickly said: "Only in times of intense piety and not without the final approval of the Church." This is a very important rejoinder.

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

6) Sectarian thinking is ultimately not compatible with order and with patience and trust in the Church. Ad hoc lay committees do not have the approbation of the Church. The Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must act in a synod to adjudicate matters in the end. They constitute the authority of the Church.

That there are false synods and true ones has never impeded us from waiting for God's action. We have the right to protest, to cut ourselves off temporarily, and to organize a temporary ecclesiastical structure; however, we do not have the right to assume we that WE are the whole Church, whether in the name of the Royal Priesthood or some tiny group of people with putative "universal jurisdiction."

Our egos have to suffer, we must act humbly, and we must not make of a short time, in the scheme of things ecclesiastical, an irreversible ill in the Church and create an "Orthodoxy" of our liking and according to an authority that we do not have, whether as laymen or Churchmen.

And let me ask where, in any of this, one finds love for those in error and an expressed desire to restore them? This is all talk about "those who are correct" at the cost of those who are ill, whom these same super-correct radicals disdain. What is missing here is Christianity.

If I am in heresy for writing any of this, so, then, must be many of the great Fathers of the Church. Ego and the desire for power do not trump the power of the Church, the primacy of love, and God, however. So, I am not a heretic.

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC

Recent Articles on R0C0R Refugees Blog

2009-11-29T05:16:00.003-06:00

A behind-the-scenes look at the writing of the Fr. Seraphim's 1976 article, "The Royal Path: True 0rthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy"
"Inside View of The Royal Path
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/inside-view-royal-path.html

This article gives an example of the Royal Path in action.
"How To Regard Piety Found In MP"
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-regard-piety-found-in-mp.html

SIR Statement of Doctrine

2009-11-14T15:29:00.002-06:00

Abstracts of Metropolitan Cyprian Oroposskogo
Daily Courier
daily-courier.livejournal.com
• Nov. 6th, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Definition of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1974:

Chairman of the Cathedral of St. Filaret New York  
"As for the question regarding the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the Church novostilnoy, Pravoslalvnaya Russian Church Outside of Russia does not consider himself or any other local Church has the power to make the final decision  as the final solution to this problem belongs to a specially convened Ecumenical Council "   

Message from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR from 3 / 16 May 1990  Chairman of Metropolitan Cathedral. Vitaly (Ustinov):
  "We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those in which the priest believes fervently and sincerely pray, Being not only a minister of religion, but a good shepherd who loves his sheep, by faith beginning, served in the saving grace of the Sacraments."
 
Resolution of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR 3 / 16 August 1994  President of the Synod of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov)   § 2, paragraph a) "the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully kept the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles, as our Russian Orthodox Tserkvov.    

Ekkliziologicheskie theses
or
Statement of the doctrine of the Church
for Orthodox opposing the heresy of ecumenism

Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky Cyprian  

1. Church and heresy.

We believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The Church in heaven and the Church on earth - one, even if the latter is named after different places, such as the Church of Galatia, "in Ephesus" or " The Church in Greece. "There is one Lord" of the Orthodox Church - Jesus Christ our Lord. "single faith" in the Church - Orthodoxy divinely inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and Bogonosnyh Fathers. "One Baptism for salvation - Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. "

Orthodox Church as a whole - is infallible and invincible. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", says the Lord Almighty. However, Christians and local churches can err in matters of faith, that is, they may be mentally ill, and sometimes there is a kind of "penetration of disease into the body of the Church", as St.. John Chrysostom. Christians can be divided and within the Church may appear "divisive" as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Local Churches may fall into heresy, as happened with the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the great heresy of Protestantism and the papacy and, eventually, to the heresy of heresies - ecumenism.

Spiritual illnesses are treated within the Church or repentance, or ecclesiastical court. Until the eruption of a heretic, schismatic and a sinner - whether the church or directly by the Lord - view individual believer can not replace the verdict of the Cathedral Church and her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the matter remains unresolved until the Second Coming. As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture field performance of the "wheat and chaff," according to the divine and a church dispensation. Those misguided in a proper understanding of faith in the fact that sins but still untried ecclesiastical court, are the sick members of the Church. Mysteries committed such unconvicted members, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are valid. For example, they are the ordination of God, "as notice of the Cathedral of St. Chair. Tarasius. On the other hand, the possible penalties imposed by the preachers of heresy in the Orthodox opposed to it - are invalid and baseless, according to the teachings of the Church," since the start of their sermons "( that is, from the moment they began to preach heresy), wrote St. Celestine of Rome and adopted the Third Ecumenical Council ..

2. Opposing and unity.

Orthodox Christians have a right based on the Gospel and church canons, detached, that is, to suspend the ecclesial communion and remembrance of the Bishop, who preaches a "heresy prinarodno and bareheaded in church, or one who is accused of what he unrepentant wrong "in matters of piety and righteousness", as stated in th Apostolic Canon, namely, when it acts "against the debt and equity," explains canonist Zonaras. If a bishop or cleric, said SW. John Chrysostom, "Luka in matters of faith, then Run, and reject it if it is not only" man, but even if an angel from heaven. "

The Orthodox, who are separated in such a way, adhering to the sacred canons, not be "canonical punishment." On the contrary, they are worthy of the church "honor", "befitting an Orthodox." They are regarded as worthy Orthodox, because "they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions." This means that "they have their office did not cause a split of the Church, but soon released her from splitting (caused by pseudo-bishops) as it depended on them," again explains Zonaras. Those who preach heresy, and the one who brings novelty into the Church, shared her and violated her integrity and unity. Those who oppose the heretical preaching or separated from it, strives to save the integrity and unity of the Church. The purpose of the confrontation and separation - the fight against heresy, the protection of the Orthodox faith and preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church, that is Orthodoxy itself.

3. Separation of the Church due to ecumenism.

Today the Church in Greece, unfortunately, divided and sick. In 1924, the dark forces divided it by innovation trinadtsatidnevnogo change festive calendar. This move resembles the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy. Iconoclastic heresy first showed itself as a failure. of the holy icons. However, this refers to not only the veneration of icons, but there was a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation. "It was, indeed," very godless and fundamental alteration ", described it as a prep. Theodore. Also a modern innovation in the festive calendar is presented as innocent chronological change. However, this is the beginning and a clear expression and manifestation of the heresy of ecumenism. This change is not just a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but innovation is ecumenical, Orthodox heretics aspirant assimilation and subordination of Orthodoxy heresiarch Antichrist-Pope. It concludes in themselves "the overthrow of all, and ultimately, the adoption of the Antichrist," writes the same teacher. mihiyskoy Theodore of heresy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, rejects God's law.

Due to innovations in the festive calendar, the Orthodox were divided into two parts: the sick in faith and health; to Renovationists and opposing, to the followers of innovation, as well conscious of our ignorance, and to oppose that separate themselves from heresy to defend Orthodoxy. These latter are the champions of the association "separated", that is, for the unity of the Orthodox Church as the Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to those who are separated for these reasons.
Followers of innovations in the calendar has not yet been convicted as such, it vsetserkovno, as is customary in Orthodoxy.

Writes St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, the offender is convicted of the existing rules only when it has already been tried "the second person, that is the cathedral." Novostilniki subject to the court since 1924 and should be judged on the basis of the Holy Council, as the local and universal, and in particular on the basis of religious orders of the sixteenth century, against the then Pope's proposals for reform of the festive calendar. Therefore, those who are separated from novostilnikov actually interrupt ecclesial communion "of the cathedral before the court, as prescribed in Rule 15-m double-Cathedral. So novostilniki has not yet been convicted. Consequently, their sacraments are valid, but the penalties imposed by them on opposing - invalid and baseless. In addition, their repentance and restoration of Orthodoxy - easily, if only they themselves wish this blessed return.

4. Repentance and return.

Each member novostilnoy Church in Greece may be resisting ecumenical innovation. This can be realized through repentance, as it always happened in Orthodoxy. We read in the minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as some bishops said: "We all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness." "And rising, a pious bishop Juvenal with them crossed to the other side", ie the side of the Orthodox. "And the representatives of the East, together with their pious bishops exclaimed: Welcome, Orthodox, verily, God brought you!". Thus, through repentance and the transition they were taken to Orthodoxy. We see a similar return and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. St. Tarasov, Chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tells us that "most" of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council "were ordained" heretics, namely, "the leaders monofelitskoy heresy." But the same passage, they were taken to Orthodoxy.

Return to Orthodoxy may also be realized through the formal renunciation of heresy. St Meletii Antioch was ordained by heretics who were called "new heretics" because they had not yet been convicted. However, as he said in his speech at the inauguration supported Orthodoxy, he became head of the Orthodox of Antioch in the later became Chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, it was adopted by the Orthodox confession and preaching of the Orthodox faith. The same thing happened later. The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls the relevant episode of "scenes from the life of our father St. Sava. It explores how mentors monks, saints Sawa and Theodosius, with his monks, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem who had previously agreed with the arch-heretic North - after the archbishop referred to verbally renounce heresy. At the same council leader of the iconoclastic heresy Business center, Vosstaniya was accepted to participate in the cathedral through the examination of his beliefs and his written denial of this great heresy.

Orthodox tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teaches us that the sick in faith members divided the Church of Greece may be taken by one of the above ways of repentance and return to the ranks of Orthodoxy, because they are not condemned as heretics or schismatics, and members of the Church had not yet given to court. The adoption of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, the pious judgment Orthodox bishop, who acts according to God, or his confessor. Believers need to take these God blessed the pastors of God as the path to perfection, according to the will of Jesus Christ our Savior, "who all man hoschet be saved in the mind of the truth Priit" and the divine commandment, which states: "iznemogayuschago in the same verve acceptable, not in doubt thoughts. "All of you," writes St. Ignatius of Antioch, "go to the footprint of the Orthodox bishop and priests. Because "that he approves of, and also want God."

5. To the Cathedral of association.

Since the Church of Greece today is divided, the Holy Cathedral Church of Greece united in the form in which it existed before the innovation of 1924, can not be convened. As it has always been in the Orthodox Church, the convening of such a council
would be possible only when separated will unite in Orthodoxy.

During the dominance iconoclast heresy, for example, it was impossible to convene the Orthodox Cathedral of the Church. Only when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, in the year, was convened by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Association. The same Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the words of the Holy Fathers declared that he held "to split" differences to reconcile, and to remove the barrier of hostility, and to restore the priority of the original precepts Catholic (Orthodox) church. "In other words, it was held in order to disparate parts of the Church - then divided by the iconoclasts, dissenters from the Orthodox faith, Orthodox, opposed iconoclast heresy - were united in harmony within Orthodoxy. In this way, it is through the consent of Orthodoxy Church United Church of Greece can be convened as the Cathedral of the association "separated" followers of the ecumenical innovation and opposing it.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not a united Synod of the Church of Greece. This synod, deviating in innovation, was at odds with the Church. His actions and decisions in favor of changing the calendar and the papal ecumenism - and indeed the heresy of ecumenism - put him clearly in the category of ancient cathedrals, who sympathized with heretics, or were themselves heretical. These churches were going to convene the ecumenical councils, such as the iconoclastic council of 754, was convened to innovation iconoclastic heresy and condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

But the Holy Synod of the opposing innovation in the festive calendar and ecumenism, too, do not constitute a joint council of the Orthodox Church in Greece. According to the Gospel and the canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the separation and the struggle against heresy by the Orthodox opposed to it, is aimed at preserving the unity of the Church's faith, and the union split the Church of Greece by uniting the council. As already mentioned, they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions, "Therefore, until such a Council is only expected association and still be held in the future, now struggles to exploit the Orthodox opposition . The existence of different synods oppose - a sign of the good fight and struggle for faith. They should therefore be considered as groups and gatherings of bishops, who represent the spirit of the Orthodox opposition to heresy in favor of Orthodoxy and for the sake of the unity of the Church.

6. Need Orthodox opposition.

By the first requires no administrative organization opposed to innovation, as if they alone form a united Church of Greece, but the need is the struggle against the Orthodox heresy, according to the deeds and teachings of saints of the past. "We need a great fight and the law," said St. Basil the Great in times similar to our. "Indeed, we need a great struggle according to the evangelical and canonical law, the acts of saints and the just state law.

Each combines an ecumenical council of the Church was the fruit of the sacred struggle of Orthodox, who opposed the heresy. First Ecumenical Council was held as a result of righteous struggle for the faith, mainly Sts. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, the Second Ecumenical Council - Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Third Ecumenical Council took place thanks to the efforts, first, Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome. Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were convened by the efforts of the Orthodox, who, without sparing himself, fought for the Orthodox faith "even unto death." The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held by the struggle, above all, teacher. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius "The Seventh Ecumenical Council was the result of efforts, in particular teacher. John of Damascus and other saints.

And today, we would come to the Orthodox Cathedral of the divides of the Church in Greece, by imitating the saints and the heroic fighters of the Orthodox Church, which preceded us. This requires: Orthodoxy, Fathers' rationale; standoff following the example of the saints, and cooperation between the opposing in the Orthodox faith and love of truth, "says the Apostle Paul, the struggle against the innovations in the calendar, and generally against the heresy of heresies - ecumenism. The fight must be persistent, the legal and until his death. For the LORD said, a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Blessed be faithful even unto death, and give ti crown belly"

+ Cyprian,  Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky,  Chairman of the Synod of Resistance  (True Orthodox Christians in Greece).
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece. 1993

Translated from the Greek

Epistle to Cyprianites‏

2009-10-21T13:49:00.007-05:00

Epistle to Cyprianites‏
From:
O Ekklisiastikos (ekklisiastikos@gmail.com)

Sent:
Mon 10/19/09 2:06 PM
To:
joannahigginbotham@live.com

http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/epistle-to-cyprianites.html

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
this is a letter to Cyprianites written by the editorial team of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com as a responce to their announcement of the cessation of informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. If you consider the letter important and if you will you may publish it.

Yours,
--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

St. Pelagia

Dear Ekklisiastikos,

Thank you for thinking to send this to R0C0R Refugees. You might know that I have a satelite blog devoted to "Cyprianism" in an effort to understand this issue.

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/

I pretty much ended my searchings into this matter after visiting the SIR monastery in Etna last March. For all the criticisms against the SIR, for all the accusations of their being heretics and schismatics, for all the canons and quotes of saints, all the pages and pages of intellectual logic proving their gracelessness, -- how do we explain that they do in fact have grace?

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-does-too-have-grace.html

Grace is there. It is there where, according to the anti-Cyprianites, it can not be. It is there in the SIR monastery in Etna so thick you can cut it with a knife. The only conclusion I can come to is there has to be something faulty with the anti-Cyprianite reasoning. Just what the error is I could never hope to figure out, that is for somebody smarter than I.

The only other possibility I can imagine is that I'm in prelest - that I mistake a demonic illusion for God's grace. If that is so, then also the grace at my baptism was a demonic illusion, and 0rthodoxy is a trick and not the true faith. That possibility is too absurd to consider.

So, the issue is pretty dead for me, but I will post the invitation to your website for those who wish to look into it further.

In Christ,
Joanna Higginbotham

∞∞∞
WARNING:
I've been advised to be clear to our readers that R0C0R Refugees blog does not recommend the ekklisiastikos.com website or studying these types of materials [about grace, heretics, canonicity] written by the super-correct since it can lead away from the Royal Path.

Sticky

2009-06-03T13:16:00.004-05:00

HA! See this!
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/06/letters-to-troubled-monastic.html

Thank Dear Heaven! I do not have to hear any more about who has grace and who does not have grace!

Miracle In Moscow

2009-05-24T12:52:00.006-05:00

(No matter how this miracle is interpreted, it manifested first in the private home of a servant of God in the MP in 1998. Considering this, it shows us the Royal Path regarding how we should view the MP. -jh)

MIRACLE IN MOSCOW

Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.

***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.

As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.

The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)

Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."

"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."

***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.

The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.

On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.

***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.

All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.

To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.

The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,

"All those have sinned against him (the Tsar-Martyr) and against Russia who, in one way or another, either moved against him; or who did not oppose this action; or who, even out of sympathy with it, thus took part (vicariously) in that event which occurred many years ago. This sin lies upon all, until that time when it is washed away by genuine and sincere repentance."

How many there are yet in Russia of those who labor tirelessly to blacken the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, sparing no efforts to prevent his universal glorification! How many there are in our midst who, on more than one occasion, have spoken sympathetically of this regicide, repeating fables about "Bloody Nicholas" and unfounded gossip concerning Rasputin, exclaiming: "What kind of saint was the Czar'?!" Even amongst today's zealous defenders of the veneration of the Tsar'-Martyr there are not a few who for years had to scrour away their former blasphemously contemptible and narrow-minded prejudices. And who among us has not sinned through treacherous silence when we listened to the slander poured out against the Royal Martyrs and did nothing to silence lying lips with the word of truth. We must not be deceived, regicide is a fearsome sin, one which, as before, continues to weigh heavily upon our people. It is only through sincere and tearful repentance that we can shake off its burden. If a penitential prayer for the forgiveness of her sins, offered up by one, single, devout woman, had as its consequence the manifestation of a myrrh-streaming ikon, then the repentance of each and every one of us is not pointless, but something laden with great significance, and something that, through the prayers of holy Czar'-Martyr Nicholas, will not remain fruitless before God.

O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!

source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery

An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html

AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER

2009-04-09T00:01:00.005-05:00

This position paper, composed in 1984 by Metropolitan Cyprian and the Fathers of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, is perhaps the most articulate contemporary ecclesiological document issued by any Old Calendarist group in Greece. Its general tone and the trenchant use of Patristic and Church historical sources are elements which commend it to a general Orthodox audience. Its appealing and reasonable arguments have met with general approval in Greece, both among Old and New Calendarists of moderate inclinations.

AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
For Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism
by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili

The Church and Heresy.

We believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 99 “The Church in the Heavens and that on earth” are “one,” 100 “even if the latter is designated according to different localities,” 101 as, for example, the Churches of “Galatia,” 102 the Church in “Ephesus,” 103 or the “Church of Greece.” There is “one Lord” of the Orthodox Church, our Lord Jesus Christ. There is “one Faith” in the Church, the Orthodoxy of the God-inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the God-bearing Fathers. There is but one “Baptism”104 unto salvation, that of Orthodox Baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 105

The Orthodox Church as a whole is unerring and invincible: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”106 says the Lord, the Ruler of All. It is possible, however, for Christians and for local Churches to fall in faith; that is to say, it is possible for them to suffer spiritually and for one to see a certain “siege of illness within the body of the Church,” as St. John Chrysostom says. 107 It is possible for Christians to separate and for “divisions” to appear within the Church, as the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. 108 It is possible for local Churches to fall into heresy, as occurred in the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the heresies of Papism and Protestantism and finally into the panheresy of ecumenism.

Spiritual maladies within the Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming. As is well known, in the Scriptures, the Church is likened to a field replete with “wheat” and “tares,”109 in ac- cordance with Divine and ecclesiastical economy. Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsen- tenced members are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, as, for example, the President of the Synod, St. Tarasios, remarks: “[their] Ordination” “is from God.” 110 By contrast, should expositors of heresy punish the Orthodox opposed to them, these punishments are ecclesiastically invalid and groundless “from the time their preaching began” (i.e., from the moment they began preaching heresy), as St. Celestine of Rome wrote and as the Third Ecumenical Synod agreed.111

Those in Opposition and Union.

Orthodox Christians have an evangelical and canonical right to wall themselves off: that is to say, to break ecclesiastical communion with and comme- moration of a Bishop who preaches “heresy” “publicly” “and bareheaded in the Church,”112 or who is blameworthy, in that he errs unrepentantly “in point of piety and righteousness,” as the Thirty-First Apostolic Canon states 113—namely, when the Bishop acts “contrary to duty and justice,” as Zonaras the canon lawyer explains. 114 If a Bishop or clergyman is “evil” “with regard to the Faith, leave and abandon him, not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven,” says St. John Chrysostom.115

Those Orthodox who have canonically separated themselves in this way, in keeping with the holy canons, are not subject to “canonical punishment,” but are even worthy of ecclesiastical “honor” “befitting those of right belief.” They are honored as worthy Orthodox since “they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” 116 That is, “they have caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism [of her pseudo-Bishops],” Zonaras again observes.117 He who preaches heresy or he who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church. The aim of opposition and separation is the combatting of heresy, the defense of the Orthodox Faith, and the preservation of the unity of the Orthodox Church, indeed of Orthodoxy itself.

The Division in the Church over Ecumenism.

Today, the Church of Greece is, unfortunately, divided and ailing. In the year
1924, dark powers divided her through the thirteen-day inno- vation in the festal calendar. This innovation resembles the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy. The iconoclastic heresy raged in its desire to abolish the sacred Icons. However, it was related not “only to the veneration of Icons, but, more broadly, was a religious and ecclesiastical reformation.” 118 It was, truly, a “transmutation of all things into ungodliness,” as St. Theodore the Studite characterized it. 119 Yet the current innovation in the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is, however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy. It embodies the “overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”120 as St. Theodore writes again regarding the Moechian** controversy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, abolished the law of God.

With regard to the innovation in the festal calendar, Orthodox are divided into two parts: into those who are ailing in Faith and those who are healthy, into innovators and opposers—into followers of innovation, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, and those opposed, who have separated themselves from heresy, in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter are strugglers for oneness among the “divided,” as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 121 calls those who so separated for the Orthodox unity of the Church. The followers of the festal calendar innovation have not yet been specifically judged in a Pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for by the Orthodox Church. As St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain writes, the violator of established precepts is considered sen- tenced, insofar as he is judged by “the second entity (which is the council or synod).”122 Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Synods, both Œcumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this respect, those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have actually broken communion “before [a] conciliar or synodal verdict,” as is allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.123 That is to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, their Mysteries are valid, the punishments perchance imposed by them against those in opposition are invalid and groundless, and their repentance and restoration to Orthodoxy are easy, should they wish this blessed return.

Repentance and Return.

Every innovationist member of the divided Greek Church is capable of changing over to opposition against the Ecumenist innovation. This can be accomplished through repentance, as has always taken place in Orthodoxy. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, we read that certain Bishops proclaimed: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness.” “And having stood up, the revered Bishop Juvenal, along with the others, went over to the other side,” that is, to the side of the Orthodox. “And the Easterners, along with their pious Bishops, cried out, ‘Welcome, Orthodox, God has rightly brought you.’” 124 Hence, they were received through their repentance and by their having approached the Orthodox. We see a similar manner of return in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. St. Tarasios, President of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, tells us that the “majority” of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod “had been Consecrated” by heretics—indeed, by “the leaders of the monothelitic heresy.”125 However, by their having approached [the Synod] they were enrolled in Orthodoxy.

A return to Orthodoxy can also take place through a formal renunciation of heresy. St. Meletios of Antioch was Consecrated by heretics—the so-called “new heretics,” since they had not yet come to trial. 126 Since, however, he supported Orthodoxy in his address at his enthronement, he was considered the leader of the Orthodox of Antioch and later became the President of the Second Œcumenical Synod. Thus he was received into Orthodoxy by confession and by preaching the Orthodox Faith. The same also occurred later. The Seventh Œcumenical Synod invoked a pertinent passage “from the life of our Holy Father Sabbas.” In this passage, it is related that the monastic leaders St. Sabbas and St. Theodore, along with the monastics under them, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem—who had previously been in agreement with the arch-heretic Severos—, after the Archbishop verbally renounced the latter’s heresy.127 And at the same Synod, the chief representative of the heresy of iconoclasm, Gregory of Neocaesareae, was received as a member of the synod through an examination of his corrected opinions and previous libel and by his renunciation of this great heresy.128

Therefore, the Orthodox Tradition of the Holy Œcumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial. The working-out of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, to the pious judgment of the Orthodox Bishop whose acts are in keeping with the Divine, or to a spiritual child appointed by him. The Faithful are obliged to receive these God-pleasing acts of economy by the Shepherds of God as a process for the perfecting of sinners, in accord with the Will of Christ our Savior, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of thetruth.”129 And we also have the divine commandment, which tells us: “Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”130 “Every one of you,” writes St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, “follow” the Orthodox Bishop and the Presbyters. For “whatever he should approve,” this “is pleasing to God also.” 131

Towards a Unifying Synod.

Obviously, insofar as the Greek Church is divided today, the Holy Synod of the united Greek Church, as it was before the innovation of 1924, cannot be con- vened. As has always happened in the Orthodox Church, the convocation of this Synod will be made possible only when those who are divided are united in Orthodoxy.

During the reign of the iconoclastic innovation, for example, it was impossible for an Orthodox Synod of the entire Church to be convened. For this reason, such a Synod was convened when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, that is, in 787, as the Seventh Œcumenical Synod of union. The same Seventh Œcumenical Synod writes through its Fathers that the Synod took place “so that we might change the discord of controversy into concord, that the dividing wall of enmity might be removed and that the original rulings of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church might be validated.” 132 That is, it was convened so that the differing factions of the Church, divided up to the time of the Synod—the Iconoclasts disagreeing with the Orthodox belief and the Orthodox opposed to the iconoclastic heresy—, might be united by means of an agreement within Orthodoxy.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece” is not the Synod of the united Greek Church. This is a Synod in ecclesiastical discord and marked by innovation. Her acts and decisions with regard to the changing of the festal calendar and Papal heresy—or, more generally, the heresy of ecumenism— place her, assuredly, in the category of the more ancient, heresy- befriending or heretical councils that were convened before the Ecumenical Synods, as, for example, the iconoclastic council of 754, convened on behalf of the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy, 133 and condemned by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod.

But neither do the Holy Synods of the opposers of inno- vations in the festal calendar and ecumenism constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church of Greece. In agreement with evangelical and canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the walling-off and the struggle against heresy, by the Orthodox in opposition to these things, are aimed at saving the unity of the Church’s Faith and at the union of the divided Greek Church through a unifying Synod. As it has been said, such “have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”134 Insofar, then, as a unifying Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of the Church.

The Need for Orthodox Opposition.

What is preeminently required, therefore, is not the administrative organization of those in opposition to innovation, as though they alone constituted the whole Greek Church, but rather the fight against heresy by Orthodox, as the Saints practiced and taught such in times past. “There is a need, then, for a great and lawful struggle,” said St. Basil in a time that parallels our own.135 Indeed, there is a need for a great struggle that conforms to evangelical and canonical law, to the acts of the Saints, and to legitimate state legislation.

Every unifying Œcumenical Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood opposed to heresy. The first Œcumenical Synod came about especially as a result of the faithful struggles of St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasios the Great. The Second Œcumenical Synod was the result of the particular struggles of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The third Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special efforts of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome. The Fourth and Fifth Œcumenical Synods grew forth from the efforts of Orthodox who did not rest, but who struggled for the Orthodox Faith “unto death.”136 The Sixth Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special struggles of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The Seventh Œcume- nical Synod was the outcome of the efforts of St. John of Damascus and other Saints.

Today, also, we will attain to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy; a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints; collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in the Orthodox Faith and in the love “of the truth,” as the Apostle Paul says; 137 and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar and, more generally, ecumenism. The fight must be strong, lawful, and unto death. For, “be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” says the Lord of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.138

[Translated from the Greek by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna.]

——————

** A theological and political dispute involving Emperor Constantine VI and his divorce and remarriage to his mother’s lady-in-waiting. St. Theodore the Studite vehemently opposed the Emperor’s remarriage as adulterous and illicit by Church law. [See comments above, Chapter I.]

Source: Patrick G. Barker, A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resist- ance (Etna, California: C.T.O.S., 1994), pp. 57-66.

See Also: THE TRUE MEANING OF CANONICITY
http://rocorrefugeesreadmore.blogspot.com/2008/08/true-meaning-of-canonicity.html

++++++++

99 The Symbol of the Faith.
100 The Acts and Pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Synod, PM, 2, 889.
101 St. Basil the Great, PG, 32, 629.
102 Gal. 1: 2.
103 Rev. 2:1.
104 Eph. 4:5.
105 St. Mt. 28:19.
106 St. Mt. 16:18.
107 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 48, 844.
108 I Cor. 1:10–14.
109 St. Mt. 13:20–30.
110 Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 12, 1042.
111 St. Celestine of Rome, PM, 4, 1045.
112 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
113 Thirty-First Apostolic Canon.
114 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 40.
115 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 63, 231.
116 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
117 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 694.
118 B. Stephanidou, Ecclesiastical History [in Greek], Athens, 1970, p. 256.
119 St. Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1164.
120 Ibid., 1025.
121 Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 13, 408.
122 St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, The Rudder [in Greek], p. 19 [5].
123 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
124 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1034.
125 Ibid., 1047.
126 St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, PG, 42, 429.
127 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1042–1046.
128 Ibid., 1115–1119.
129 I Tim. 2:4.
130 Rom. 14:1.
131 St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, Bepes, 2, 281 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8].
132 Letter, op. cit., 408.
133 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 397.
134 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
135 St. Basil the Great, PG, 31, 1540.
136 Rev. 2:10.
137 II Thes. 2:10.
138 Rev. 2:10.

SIR Does Too Have Grace

2009-03-22T14:39:00.011-05:00

A Testimony

The Anti-Cyprianites are not going to like this. They have it all figured out from the canons that the Cyprianites are heretics and can't possibly have grace. They are simply wrong. Something is missing in their logic. I do not know what it is, their logic seems sound to me. But something has to be wrong, because grace IS there. I'm a witness to it.

When St. Vladimir's envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth..." that was not just a poetic description of their joy and awe. And it was not because they were overwhelmed with the beauty of the icons, the chanting, the fragrant incense, the peaceful expressions on faces of the worshippers, the majesty of the service.

What struck them was that they found themselves in a "place" where the line between heaven and earth is indistinct. Through no effort of their own, and without expectation, they found themselves in a place where time and thought are suspended. A silencing of all inner strife, profound peace. Effortlessly your whole being becomes an active state of prayer and worship. There is no time or room for anything else. There is nothing like it on earth and no way to describe it with words. It is as the envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth." Because it is being both in heaven and on earth at the same time. And "earth" does not remain the same when it occupies the same time/space as heaven.

For St. Gregory of Palamas Sunday I visited St. Gregory Palamas' in Etna where my Vladyka Andronik was also visiting. I arrived a little early, and found the monks already deep inside the church with their shoes all neatly piled outside the door. I entered the Church and took "my place" on the woman's side. Immediately I noticed that timelessness that used to be so familiar in old ROCOR services. It became more intense as I stood there, and it overtook me. I do not think I've ever experienced it that strong. A deep sense of belonging and rightness of being in the "here and now."

Later at the convent I was shown the convent chapel of St. Elizabeth's. And Lo! The same timelessness was there even though there was no service going on! I thought, "Everybody is here!" meaning all the saints and angels who are present for services. The nun who showed me the chapel said that the sisters keep the full cycle - maybe that's why heaven does not bother to draw back up in between services.

-jh

Joanna's Notepad

2009-03-09T21:40:00.003-05:00

Dr. Vladimir Moss Open Letter on Cyprianism
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/208/an-open-letter-cyprianism/

I've read this. The logic is flawless. It makes perfect sense.
And I love Dr. Vladimir Moss.
So, why don't I join the Super-Correct?

Because I know that there can be some grace where logically it should be impossible for there to be any grace at all. I know this because I've experienced it myself and can not deny it. In the OCA and in ROCOR-MP. This is why I can not join the super-correct, even though I like to listen to them.

Westminster Abbey Has No Grace

2009-02-10T21:48:00.004-06:00

ORTHODOX HOLINESS: ST.JOHN THE WONDERWORKER IN ENGLAND.

Fr Andrew (Phillips?)

For twelve years, from 1950 to 1962, St John was Archbishop of Western Europe, with his see first in Paris, and then in Brussels. As such he was also responsible for the British Isles and, in particular, England. During this time he made several visits to London. The following has been recorded of those visits.

The late Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), pastor and learned writer on Church history (+ 2004), recounted the following:

Vladyka John visited us in London. He usually visited us every year on the Dormition of the Mother of God, our Patronal Feast. Vladyka John was an outstanding personality. Everybody loved him and revered him, but not in an idolatrous way. It was rather a profound deference to his ascetic struggles and to himself, as one who of his own will carried on this spiritual struggle.

Vladyka John routinely visited churches of other faiths, where the grace of Orthodoxy might still manifest itself, especially in the form of the holy relics of saints who had been glorified before the Schism. Following this practice, Vladyka John expressed the intention of visiting Westminster Abbey. At one time it may have been a holy place. In spite of the devastation wreaked by Henry VIII, the Abbey had miraculously been preserved as a working church. Now, however, it no longer possesses the holiness it once had as an ancient church. Now people simply go to see it as one of London’s tourist attractions. Vladyka also went to see it, but after spending only a short time there, he left, saying: ‘There is no grace here’. It is true, there could be found the remains of famous English figures, of the country’s political founders, writers and scholars, but not of saints.

Full Article *Click Here*. The rest of the article is interesting, but does not pertain to the subject of who has or has not grace.

Archpriest Georgy (Primakov) On Grace Issue

2009-02-05T00:12:00.002-06:00

Google translation of an article in Vernost No. 40
http://www.metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo40.htm

Ignoring SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ISSUES

Archpriest Georgy PRIMAKOV, Dean RPTSZ Canada

Since none of our blessed memory первоиерархов and hierarchy did not say that the Church has no grace, we are persuaded that this means that in the MP it is. This is a very strange approach to a very important issue. A more logical and more persuasive, it would be to specify when and where it was said or written that there is total bliss. If our hierarchs believed that grace is complete, then why do they have categorically refused to eucharistic communion with the Church of grace? Most of all - there was neither mentioned nor written that there is total bliss. Moreover, you can find a personal expression of our hierarchy, which indicate the opposite.

Our church does not have a prayer with churches that have moved to a new style, but I do not remember that our hierarchs ever called them bezblagodatnymi. Let's think: we may be blessed memory hierarchy первоиерархи and lodged us an example of great humility believing that they were not worthy to decide about grace in the Church? In the same spirit expressed Metropolitan Cyprian, starostilnoy the Greek Church, when asked his opinion about the grace of novostilnoy the Greek Church. He said: who am I to decide this case, it will be decided in the future for true ecumenical council of the Orthodox churches, but just in case, we avoid any prayerful communion with them ». I invite all those who are trying to convince us about the grace in the Church, take the example of humility and our первоиерархов to ask yourself: Do I deserve to decide what it is and I have convincing evidence, that I may so hard to convince my colleagues in this?

Our hierarchs sebo perhaps ask the question: can I get Grace placemen Soviet atheist, non-believers in God's grace, even if they were correct hirotoniyu?

Unfortunately we kept in the dark about the negotiations regarding prayer with Moskovko Patriarchy. We duhovanstvo our church does not have the slightest notion that was resolved during the negotiations. We know however, that the Commission RPTSZ accepted the position of MP, that the activity of Metropolitan Sergius were deed ministry. " This is very unfortunate. because even a dozen years ago by members of the UIS Commission, this activity was considered to be betrayal of the Church of Christ! This type of negotiation, where the truth is murder in order to appease opponents who played more as a political rather than religious.

If the slavish service to the Soviet government and submissive compliance with the decrees of the secret service to be considered a heroic deed, then his refusal to serve Новомучеников and Исповедников our Russian Church Abroad now considers a mistake? Then, for their fame? And when the Church announced the Metropolitan Sergius saints, the Church and we will remember him along with the New Russian?

In May 2005, Patriarch Alexei II has congratulated the President of Vietnam Socialist Republic with 30-year anniversary of victory over the American army, trying to protect South Vietnam from komunistov seeking to enslave him, and he wanted God's help the Vietnamese Government. It looks as if this greeting one another Communist leader?

And in September, the patriarch of a Muslim leader Alex awarded the Order of St. Azebaydzhana. Sergius Radonezhskago first degree.

Congratulations red and rewarding Muslim leader - is not preventing us from the Lord? Which reminds us how:

«Dear children, be careful, you do not have a notion of who you want to have it!»

One of the members of our clergy, who now was in favor of prayerful communion with the Church, in 1994 wrote:

«Why talk to the MP is currently dangerous? This can cause a deep division among our clergy and flock, (That is currently happening). Prot. Lev Lebedev considers that the damage in the episcopate MP too deep and there is no sincerity in it. Priest Timothy Alferov, even being in the MP, warned us that the dialogue with the Church hierarchy is not possible. I. Lapkin warns that the final death for the Russian Church will be when the Church will go to all the requirements of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, otrekutsya from the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, kanoniziruyut the new, come from the World Council of Churches, of ecumenism. And all this without internal transformation, all this good will be done as a political move, and then RPTSZ no reason not to come to the negotiating table. And then a majority vote to suppress the truth. "It is not clear whether he was right I. Lapkin? Not happen there today that he foresaw a dozen years ago?

The aforementioned cleric RPTSZ now become a supporter of Union in 1998 in a letter the newspaper «Rus Orthodox», under the title «Be on the side of persecuted and suffering» wrote:

«His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the last recognized by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of people, gave the Bolsheviks anathema. In addition, he zaklyal all who join in communion with them: «I charge all of you loyal chad Orthodox Church of Christ, not to join with those monsters of the human race in which a communication». If His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon zaklyal all come into contact with the godless power, and the Metropolitan Sergius, in its Declaration made it so does not extend it a paternoster for MP to this day? There was and whether anfematstvovanie Patriarch Tikhon real meaning and effect? And his paternoster? What these anafematstvovanie and paternoster were removed? This is a serious spiritual issues, and ignore them Russian Orthodox Christian can not ».

Today in our church just happens that this cleric has called unacceptable disregard for serious spiritual questions.

Our country is number 2791

A Letter 1/31/09

2009-01-31T21:35:00.007-06:00

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

2009-01-27T15:57:00.007-06:00

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

2009-01-18T23:52:00.014-06:00

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

2009-01-18T23:07:00.007-06:00

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

2009-01-05T22:49:00.003-06:00

"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

Orthodox Facing the 1980's

2008-12-29T21:08:00.002-06:00

"Orthodox Christians Facing the 1980s"
Excerpts from a lecture given by Fr. Seraphim Rose
at the St. Herman Summer Pilgrimage, Platina, CA, August 9, 1979.

Looking at Orthodoxy, at its present state and its prospects in the period before us, we may see two opposed aspects. First of all, there is the spirit of worldliness which is so present in the Orthodox Churches today, leading to a watering-down of Orthodoxy, a loss of the difference between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This worldliness has produced the Ecumenical movement, which is leading to the approaching Unia with Rome and the Western confessions—something that may well occur in the 1980s. In itself, this will probably not be a spectacular event: most Orthodox people have become so unaware of their faith, and so indifferent to it, that they will only welcome the opportunity to receive communion in a Roman or Anglican church. This spirit of worldliness is what is in the air and seems natural today; it is the religious equivalent of the atheist-agnostic atmosphere that prevails in the world.

What should be our response to this worldly ecumenical movement? Fortunately, our bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia have given us a sound policy to follow: we do not participate in the Ecumenical Movement, and our 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. But because of this policy, our Church suffers attacks both from the left side (from ecumenists who accuse us of being uncharitable, behind the times,and the like) and from the right side (by groups in Greece that demand that we break communion with all Orthodox Churches and declare them to be without grace).

Indeed, if one looks at the state of the Orthodox Church in Greece, we can see that the Ecumenical Movement has produced a reaction that has often become excessive, and sometimes is almost as bad as the disease it seeks to cure. The more moderate of the Old Calendarist groups in Greece has a position similar to that of our Russian Church Abroad; but schism after schism has occurred among the Old Calendarists over the question of strictness. A few years ago one of these groups cut off communion with our Russian Church Abroad because our bishops refused to declare that all other Orthodox Churches are without grace; this group now declares that it alone has grace, only it is Orthodox. Recently this group has attracted some converts from our Russian Church Abroad, and we should be aware that this attitude is a danger to some of our American and European converts: with our calculating, rationalistic minds it is very easy to think we are being zealous and strict, when actually we are chiefly indulging our passion for self-righteousness.

One Old Calendarist bishop in Greece has written to us that incalculable harm has been done to the Orthodox Church in Greece by what he calls the correctness disease, when people quote canons, Fathers, the typicon in order to prove they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Correctness can truly become a disease when it is administered without love and tolerance and awareness of ones own imperfect understanding. Such a correctness only produces continual schisms, and in the end only helps the Ecumenical Movement by reducing the witness of sound Orthodoxy.

Conspicuous among Orthodox today—certain to be with us into the 1980s—is the worldly spirit by which Orthodoxy is losing its savor, expressed in the Ecumenical Movement, together with the reaction against it, which is often excessive precisely because the same worldly spirit is present in it.

There will undoubtedly be an increasing number of Orthodox converts in America and Europe in the coming decade, and we must strive that our missionary witness to them will help to produce, not cold, calculating, correct experts in the letter of the law, but warm, loving, simple Christians—at least as far as our haughty Western temperament will allow.

Once Fr. Dimitri [Dudko] was asked about how much better off religion was in the free world than in Russia, and he answered: Yes, they have freedom and many churches, but theirs is a spirituality with comfort. We in Russia have a different path, a path of suffering that can produce real fruit.

We should remember this phrase when we look at our own feeble Orthodoxy in the free world: are we content to have beautiful churches and chanting; do we perhaps boast that we keep the fasts and the church calendar, have good icons and congregational singing, that we give to the poor and perhaps tithe to the Church? Do we delight in exalted patristic teachings and theological conferences without having the simplicity of Christ in our hearts? Then ours is a spirituality with comfort, and we will not have the spiritual fruits that will be exhibited by those without all these comforts, who deeply suffer and struggle for Christ. In this sense we should take our tone from the suffering Church in Russia and place the externals of the Churchs worship in their proper place.

Our most important task, perhaps, is the Christian enlightenment of ourselves and others. We must go deeper into our faith—not by studying the canons of Ecumenical Councils or the typicon (although they also have their place), but by knowing how God acts in our lives; by reading the lives of God-pleasers in the Old and New Testaments (we read the Old Testament far too little; it is very instructive); by reading the lives of Saints and the writings of the Holy Fathers on practical spiritual life; by reading about the suffering of Christians today and in recent years. In all of this learning our eyes must be on heaven above, the goal we strive for, not on the problems and disasters of earth below.

Our Christian life and learning must be such that it will enable us to know the true Christ and to recognize the false Christ (Antichrist) when he comes. It is not theoretical knowledge or correctness that will give this knowledge to us. Vladimir Soloviev in his parable of Antichrist has a valuable insight when he notes that Antichrist will build a museum of all possible Byzantine antiquities for the Orthodox, if only they accept him. So, too, mere correctness in Orthodoxy without a loving Christian heart will not be able to resist Antichrist; one will recognize him and be firm to stand against him chiefly by the heart and not the head. We must develop in ourselves the right Christian feelings and instincts, and put off all fascination with the spiritual comforts of the Orthodox way of life, or else we will be—as one discerning observer of present-day converts has observed—Orthodox but not Christian.

Concerning Super-Correctness

2008-12-29T18:25:00.002-06:00

Concerning Super Correctness
A Word of Warning to the Orthodox Christians of the West
By Bishop [now Metropolitan] Cyprian of Oropos and Fili

For over fifty years [as of 1976] the Orthodox Old Calendarists of Greece have fought a courageous battle, in the face of sometimes fierce persecution, for the preservation of genuine Orthodoxy against modernism and ecumenism. Unfortunately, their witness has to some extent been undermined by the presence among them of extreme views which have caused unnecessary schisms. In the end, this extremism has only aided the cause of modernism, which rejoices at every division among those of traditional views. This "temptation from the right side" is now making itself felt in America and the Western world in the form of new schisms, over hasty accusations of "heresy" and "betrayal", and the spread of the spirit of suspicion towards everyone not of one's own "party". The present warning, in the form of a letter to Saint Herman Brotherhood from one of the most respected leaders of the Old-Calendarist movement in Greece, is a most timely one. Bishop Cyprian is also Abbot of the Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina in Fili, near Athens.

YOU HAVE WRITTEN asking me to put together a few words describing the dangers of the temptation of a "super-correctness" in questions of Orthodox faith and practice, and the damage it has caused to the Greek Church in our days. This you would like as a warning to those in America who are troubled by this same temptation, and you would like them to benefit from our experience here. Very gladly, therefore, we will attempt to do this, emphasizing from the beginning that we have no wish to criticize persons, but rather the mentality of extremism, the danger of temptation "from the right."

We must begin with a few words on our confession of faith: the Orthodox Church is deeply wounded by the heresy of ecumenism, the betrayal of the hierarchy in some communist lands, the abandonment of every vestige of Orthodox piety in some parts of the Diaspora. We have no doubt that the leaders of the ecumenical movement, in fully equating Orthodoxy with heresy, have fallen away from the Church. With such, and those who commune with them, we can have no communion at all, nor can we regard them any longer as Orthodox, but wolves, all too often in the sheep's clothing of Patriarch's and bishops. Every witness of the Fathers confirms that economy in matters of heresy constitutes betrayal. We regard the new calendar as the first step in the ecumenical movement, and thus can have no communion with new calendarists.

From the above, two questions arise: firstly, have all those with whom we have severed communion fallen into heresy, and placed themselves outside the Church? Secondly, if they have not, what justification do we have in cutting off prayerful relations with them? Both these questions require much thought. Insofar as the ecumenists are concerned, one can discern three categories:

(1) Those who wholly equate Orthodoxy with heresy, and thus voluntarily place themselves outside the Church in some sort of vague "superchurch."

(2) Those who, while they in no way negate their Orthodoxy, nonetheless take part in joint prayer with heretics in transgression of the canons. We may perhaps call them anti-canonical rather than openly heretical.

(3) Those who, while they disagree to a greater or lesser extent with ecumenism, commune with the ecumenists, perhaps considering that they do so using economy.

We, pursuing the purity of the faith, can have no communion of prayer with the clergy who belong to these categories. But the vexed questions are: how are we to treat their flock? What degree of economy is permissible in our dealings with them? Which of the above clergy have definitely lost the grace of the priesthood through their apostasy? It is much the same questions, so far as we know, which wracked the Catacomb Church in Russia in its early years (and perhaps now), and it is disputes over these questions which have caused the greatest troubles amongst the Old-Calendarists of Greece.

These troubles we will summarize very briefly: in 1935, three bishops of the new calendar Church of Greece returned to the observance of the old calendar, and immediately consecrated four new bishops. The subsequent history of these does not concern us here, except for one; he, Bishop Matthew, a man of great personal virtues but extremist temperament, in 1937 separated himself from the other hierarchs, forming a schism which exists to the present day. The reason for his action was that the senior bishop, Metropolitan Chrysostomos, was asked in an interview if he considered that the State Church had lost the Grace of the Sacraments in accepting the calendar innovation. He replied no, only a future council could condemn the new-calendarists as definitely outside the Church; what we know is that they are seriously guilty before the Church, its canons and traditions, and therefore we can have no communion with them until such time as they return to the traditions and discipline of the Church. This truly Orthodox ecclesiology, which can be paralleled particularly in St. Theodore the Studite, met with incomprehension on both sides. Both the new-calendarists and a section of the old-calendarists condemned him as illogical: if they have grace, what justification exists for separation from them? As noted above, one of the newly-consecrated bishops departed and formed a schism which exists to the present day. We can only see this as a fruit of the mentality of over-correctness,"of a neglect of the economy which the Church requires to use for the salvation of souls. The damage caused to the Greek Church is immeasurable, for had this division not occurred, the State Church of Greece would long have been obliged to return to the old calendar.

We can cite other examples of this "overcorrectness" from our own experience. A fearful example is the following: A few years ago a woman, unfortunately a nun, reading through the works of St. Nectarios, the great wonderworker of our times, came across a few passages which she considered as not in accord with Orthodox teaching. A discerning mind would see in these passages the influence primarily of the westernized theological training which the Saint received, and of the historian Paparigopoulos (from whose book the passages are taken almost directly), and certainly no intentional contradiction of Orthodox teaching. The unfortunate nun, however, proceeded to write three books denouncing St. Nectarios as a "heretic, iconoclast, ecumenist, and Latin." Simple people were influenced, many souls were wounded and scandalized. This fanatical mentality, as so often, had seized a detail while ignoring the whole—the exemplary and holy life of St. Nectarios and his innumerable miracles.

Another example is provided for us by a group of persons who have severed all communion with all the Orthodox in Greece because the hierarchs will not officially condemn as heretical the western-style icon of the Holy Trinity (with God the Father represented as an old man, and the Holy Spirit as a dove). Neglecting everything else, they have seized on this detail, and have been led into schism. Their struggle for the removal of this iconic type has become an obsession, a prelest.

We should, however, in fairness point out that these disputes have often been made much worse by the opponents taking an equally fanatical position. Discretion is needed on both sides. It is also true that extremism amongst the old-calendarists has been fostered by the savage persecutions which the State Church has launched from time to time.

One of the most disastrous examples of the phenomenon of which we are speaking is the disputes between the zealots of the Holy Mountain. Many, to be sure, are clearminded and sure of their purpose, but others waste so much time in useless disputes. In one and the same skete, one can find in each house a different ecclesiology, a different mentality, and not one in communion with their neighbors. They have seized on details, and all too often, in their lack of theological education, have seized on them quite incorrectly. Often their opinions are rational, but taken to extremes; others, however, become very strange; one group believes that the name of Jesus shares in His Divinity, and that all who do not so believe are heretics; another, that those who practice frequent Holy Communion are heretics and excommunicate; another has reached the old-believer position that the grace of the priesthood has vanished from the Church; and so forth. We must emphasize again that we have no wish to criticize persons; many have a holiness which we never dare hope to attain. We only criticize that mentality which leads to division and schism.

Now, to return to the questions mentioned at the beginning, we would like to relate something which we observed recently. A few months ago I visited Romania, and in one of the celebrated historical monasteries (belonging, naturally, to the official Church of Romania), was very kindly received by the Abbot, a man of evident spiritual qualities and considerable education. He began to speak enthusiastically about the ecumenical movement and the reunion of the "churches." To this I replied with such words as God enlightened me with, and I observed from his reaction that he had never before heard a point of view opposed to ecumenism. After the meeting, he told the Romanian bishop who was accompanying us that he had been much edified by the conversation. This gave me occasion for thought: it would be easy to condemn him immediately as an ecumenist and a heretic. But this was not the case; despite his education, he had never given the matter deep thought (though certainly he should have done so), he had never heard any criticism of ecumenism, it had never occurred to him that it was a denial of Orthodoxy. To place him in the same category as, let us say, Meliton of Chalcedon, would be quite unjust. Perhaps it would be fair to use the same criteria to judge the faithful in the Soviet Union, who, with few exceptions, are obliged to have recourse to the Moscow Patriarchate, or the many faithful in outlying parts of Greece who have no conception of the calendar question. For every category we must use discretion; it is impossible in all cases to apply the same strictness, while on the other hand, we must remember that economy used as a measure in itself becomes an abuse, and that in matters of real heresy there can be no use of economy.

In conclusion, we would say that the error of "over-correctness" is a form of prelest, and like the other forms, this means a blindness, an obsession. The Fathers say that prelest begins with self-reliance, and so it is: whilst pursuing some probably very laudable particular end, the general picture becomes forgotten, there sets in a hardening of mind and heart which results in dispute and fanaticism. The history of the Church provides us with many examples, and most obviously, the old believers of Russia.

We hope that these few words may help your American readers in the understanding of the mature Orthodoxy which your publications always seek to put forth.

From The Orthodox Word, July-August 1980 (93), 164ff.

source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/rose_tours.aspx

Is MP Sick Or Graceless?

2008-12-26T20:01:00.003-06:00

ABOUT THE SPIRITUAL AND MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
by Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco

All the parts of the universal Church have one common goal -- the preaching of the word of God, the preparation of people that they might become capable of being members of the Body of Christ and having become such, more and more, more sincerely and strongly would become one with the divine salvific life of the Body of Christ, for in that is the salvation of people.

In the achievement of this common goal every local Church has its significance.

To every people, through God's providence, unique gifts are given.

Every Church fulfills its mission, in keeping with these gifts. For this reason every people, or combination of related peoples, has its own Church, and such a division of ecclesiastical authority furthers the activity of preaching.

For this reason the Orthodox Church allows the establishment of new local Churches and so, new centers of preaching. In this manner arose both the Russian and Slavic Churches.

Thus, every people has its own unique characteristics of the spirit, and this is the basis for the formation of local national Churches.

All of them together comprise One Universal Church and they all bring into it these unique characteristics and gifts, just as good servants bring the fruits of those talents that God has given them. In this manner is formed the pleasing to God amalgamation of spiritual sounds and colors with which the Church that unites all peoples to the glory of God, is decorated.

This beauty the earth brings to heaven as a sweet-smelling censer.

Into this beauty the Russian Church, as well, brings its colors and its sounds: let us compare the severe at times strictness of the righteous ones of the East with the compunctionate spirit of Russian saints.

Being scattered around the whole world, we preserve the expressions of our spirit, which are given to us by God. This calls us to preserve unity with the Church, to which God appointed activity among us, our spiritual nourishment and development, the support of our spiritual zeal, the development of our talents. For this reason, scattered across the entire world, we established our Russian churches and all together we comprise one Russian Church Outside of Russia.

The spiritual manifestations of the Church are the same in all people, but their appearances -- colors and sounds -- are different. The differentiation of ways to serve and spiritual gifts was pleasing to the Creator of all -- God the Savior. We know and sense spiritual benefits and feel joy when we see how different people of different characters and gifts give glory to the one God. For this reason, for example, being led by true ecclesiastical understanding and feeling, the Serbian Church with joy took in the Russian Church, thus giving witness to the spiritual benefits of its existence in its midst.

Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is the free part of the Russian Church. Its unity is witnessed also in the fact that the mercy of God, which was shown in our Homeland in the self-renovation of icons, did not limit this manifestation to the borders of Russia but has manifested itself also in diasporan Russia, in Russian churches among Russian Orthodox people of the diaspora.

Spiritually the Russian Church is indivisible: it is always one and the same Russian Church, wherever we might be.

Being a part of the Russian Church, we cannot be in communion with the ecclesiastical authorities which are in submission and subjugation to a power which is inimical to the Church. To be in a position of such subjugation and dependence -- is a situation that would be spiritually sick: because for Church authority 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. And those who are found in such subjugation cannot not feel, cannot recognize the sickness of such a condition: some, in whom their consciences are alive, are suffering; others, with burnt-out consciences, accept this situation.

Ecclesiastical authority in Russia is found in such a position that we cannot separate and understand what is done by it freely and what is done under duress. The ecclesiastical authority in Russia is an image of captivity and spiritual powerlessness: there is neither freedom of will nor freedom of action.

We have no one to be in communion with: there is no free ecclesiastical authority!

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia for this reason is not administratively tied to such an authority. But we are united spiritually with the holy Russian Church, because we are a part of the Russian Church.

We should not think that on our homeland everyone is spiritually downtrodden by the authority that exists there. We believe in the opposite. We do not interrogate hearts, which are known to God alone, but we know that there, there is no freedom of conscience and will; that there, closed-in-ness has taken root. There is no social inter-communication. There, people cannot choose the path of their lives, following their hearts. There, one finds the situation about which the Prophet Micah prophesied: There an individual "does not trust in his friends, does not put confidence in his guides," "and the members of his household are his enemies" (Micah 7:5-6), The atheistic power influences people in a destructive way. It subjugates to itself not only the body, but it also captures the soul. It depersonalizes people, and their sincere and open Russian souls become distorted.

We, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, preserve our unity, while being in communion with all Churches with which it is possible to being communion with.

Being scattered around the entire world we do not submit to the local Churches -- not because we are inimically disposed to them, but because we cherish our holy Russian Church and the characteristics of the Russian soul. Our ecclesiastical unity is expressed in our submission to a single ecclesiastical authority for the entire diaspora, and this unity preserves the Russian people in the diaspora in faithfulness to the podvig that has been placed upon them by God.

1960

source: http://www.stjohnthebaptist.org.au/articles/roca-significance.html

Super-Correct Misunderstand Royal Path

2008-12-26T19:04:00.001-06:00

Dear Reader,
Few of us can receive the news about the Finland Orthodox homos without reacting to the absurdity of the idea of an Orthodox being a homo. Here is one reaction to this news taken from a super-correct blog, which inadvertently reveals the great misunderstanding the Super-Correct have of the Royal Path. -jh

http://stmarkofephesus.blogspot.com/2008/12/orthodox-church-in-finland-is-in.html

"Monday, December 1, 2008
The Orthodox Church in Finland is in the control of Homosexuals

The Orthodox Church in Finland, long known for celebrating Pascha on the same date as the Western heretics, has now passed into the hands of homosexuals and their sympathizers with the acquiescense of Archbishop Leo.

"The registration of parishioners as same-sex couples does not constitute a problem, according to Archbishop Leo."  

I don't wish to say anything more on the subject except to condemn this blasphemy.

For more information see: http://theoprovlitos.blogspot.com/2008/11/orthodox-church-of-finland-in-hands-of.html http://jn1034.blogspot.com/

  I'm sure all the Orthodox Patriarchs of the world will immediately break communion with the heretic Leo of Finland - not. I'm sure Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili will now immediately wake up out of his coma and pronounce Leo graceless - not. Instead, the homophobic old calendarist Cyprianites will sit around the metaphorical campfire singing "Kum ba ya" with the ailing-yet-still-grace-filled gay-loving new calendarists. The Cyprianite chapter of the Orthodox Rainbow Society will announce that homosexuality was never condemned as a heresy by the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and therefore the holy homosexuals are only potential heretics, not actual heretics, and must be accepted at the chalice with hopes that they will repent of their potential heresy.

Posted by Nathan Vanderhoofven at 9:37 PM"

Dr. Vladimir Moss LiveJournal

2008-12-26T01:00:00.005-06:00

Dr. Vladimir's LiveJournal has some scholarly analyses that are of interest to us.

The CYPRIANITE-AGATHANGELITE UNION http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1954.html
This is very critical of us and most unfair in much of the criticism. However, it is valuable to us.

The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 1 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1467.html
The UNITY OF THE TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH, PART 2 http://vladmoss.livejournal.com/1594.html
These articles help to answer the question, "Why don't the R-splits just all unite?"

But the best explanation for the fragmentation of the R-splits is within St. John's (Maximovitch) report on The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad.