Intra-TOC Polemics - ROCOR-A / ROCA: What is all this infighting and dissension?

[Barbara]

Seems to be some infighting in ROCOR-A

http://nftu.net/a-split-to-end-the-spli ... agafangel/

Yes, this infighting has been ongoing even before ROCOR-A joined the GOC-K.

The GOC union under Archbishop Kallinikos gave some stability to the ROCOR-A for a time. However, when several priests and bishops under Archbishop Kallinikos were transferred under Met. Agafangel per the agreement to have only one head of all the Russian parishes, these newly transferred clergy discovered problems that had been there all along. Some stayed, while others refused to comply and left the ROCOR-A.

We must pray for those in Russia, especially for the laity who have suffered so much from all these changing allegiances.

Read the New Testament Epistles of St. James, St. Jude, and St. John (3 John 9). All these Holy Saints talk about ungodly dissension in the Holy Orthodox Church. Even Christ reminded us that there would be wolves in sheep's clothing that would tear the Church apart if this were possible. However, the Church will survive as Christ promised because the Church is comprised of the Church Triumph (the Saints in Heaven who are the Witnesses that surround us during the Divine Liturgy) and the Church Militant (those of the struggling faithful on earth).

Thanks for that background, Maria. Can you be any more specific about the problems these presumably Russian clergy found when they went under Met Agafangel, if you have any idea ?

I thought the NFTU article was highly biased. I was surprised at its slant. I didn't read it very carefully because it seemed so far off from the truth. TRYING Met Agafangel ?? Over WHAT ? Where did he break a canon ?
To me, it is obvious that the rumblings are signals of discontent with his rule. But --- that doesn't mean there is any validity to the complaints. Or that the causes of dissension are large enough to merit such an extreme reaction. Clearly there are other forces trying to steer some hotheads into causing a major rift.

[Barbara]

Metropolitan Agafangel defends himself articulately here :

http://internetsobor.org/avtorskaya-kol ... ogo-sobora

Metropolitan Agafangel: Response to "The open letter of the Pre-Council Committee of the 6th All-Diaspora Council"

I received via e-mail an "open letter" from a group of people who call themselves "the Pre-Council Committee of the 6th All-Diaspora Council." This appeal, finally, actually includes some suggestions. Unfortunately, they are presented in the form of an ultimatum. But the mere fact that at least those exist, is certainly positive. In the appeal, there obviously should have been some formulated and corresponding charges against me. However, once again, I did not find any serious charges, apart from the disputed claims that I allegedly "drive out schismatics from the Church" and "do not listen to the flock" - and that is all. So if you abide by the words of the authors of the appeal, that is the reason, the cause for a schism! (Disobeying the Council of Bishops and the Synod, and their desire for having power exclusively for themselves, is a schism, unless of course, the authors of the appeal prefer the term parasynagogue).

There are three proposed requirements in the appeal, which, if executed- there is a promise of the avoidance of a schism

1. "To cancel the unwarranted bans imposed on the bishops, clergy and laity, and to introduce the practice of a church trial, according to the canons."

It would be desirable to give me at least one example of an "unwarranted ban", and to substantiate as to why the bans are "unwarranted". Otherwise, it is not clear what it is all about. I agree that I am to blame for the fact that I did not explain things clearly enough, each and every time, when the bans were imposed. But I cannot agree with the allegation that I am guided by the "unwillingness to listen to my flock, and by a willingness to get rid our church of all dissenters." We resolved at the Synod to consider the expediency of convening an All-Diaspora Council, but the schismatics ignored this appeal and decided instead to convene their own supposed All-Diaspora Council and, moreover, not with the aim of finding a solution to the difficult situation which was created, but frankly with the goal of creating a schism. The signatories of this appeal, all nine of those people, currently dare to call six bishops, again- not to discuss the situation- but to try them as defendants (the bishops). This year, an Ecclesiastical Church trial was held in accordance with the canons, but this group refuses to recognize its decisions.

1. "We respectfully ask you to resign as Chairman of the Council of Bishops and of the Synod, yet maintaining the rank of Metropolitan and the management of the Odessa diocese.

Can I, as a result of the demands of nine people, who, in addition to organizing a parasynagogue, single-handedly and according to my own will, remove my obedience from myself, which is legally entrusted to me according to the fullness of the Church? Would not that be a violation of catholicity? Maybe then, other members of the Church should also be asked? I understand that a legitimate All-Diaspora Council of Bishops or Synod can ask me to resign and justify this proposal. If that be the case, then truly, it should be considered. Without an informed and authoritative opinion which comes from the fullness of the Church, the demands of the schismatics simply are not serious. As I have written before, and as I repeat now, if whichever historical "fragment" wishes to unite with us without violating their own, albeit, internal canonical order, and if they are in agreement with the ecclesiology which was formulated together by the sister Old Calendar Churches, and for the sake of removing obstacles to such a reunion, I agree to submit an application for a legitimate All-Diaspora Council gathered for the occasion, to send me into retirement. Let us allow the Council to decide to fulfill my request, as to whether or not to send me into retirement and to elect a new First Hierarch, or else, to leave the structure of our Russian Church Abroad as it is. My offer still stands true today.

1. "To create three autonomous regional churches: Ukrainian-Moldavian, Russian, the Far Abroad. Each of them will be managed by its own Synod."

Regional jurisdictions (true, without "its own Synod") existed long before the formation of the ROCOR and went to our historical Church from the Local Russian Church. They were abolished by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad due to the fact that they were the source of schismatic disruptions (which, as a result, led to the formation of the OCA, the Evlogian schism and the unification of the Far Eastern jurisdictions with the MP). In other words, the ROCOR fathers were not supporters of such constituencies, but rather opposed them. Centralization poses a threat where there is a possibility of external influence on the leadership of the Church (as it was in the USSR, and is now in the Russian Federation), which is manifested in the form of separatism and the destruction of the catholic universal order of the Church (the formation of the multitude of "self-governing" renovationist groups), and ulteriorly, as an artificial substitute for the overall guidance of the Russian Church. In my opinion, the new group of schismatics gives rise to the suspicion of the existence of an external influence upon it.

They personally offer me, in bypassing the whole Church, to change the established, historical, operation of the Holy Spirit, its structure, and to create a revolution (within our Church). Supposing I do as they insist - it is not even the fact of the violation of catholicity, but, really, the end and the complete collapse of the ROCOR, in as much as the majority do not wish to follow this uncanonical act, and to be disoriented and deprived of its head: "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered "(Mark 14.27). The unity and catholicity of the Church is not in making three Synods out of one (i.e., out of one ROCOR to make three - our fathers could not even have come up with such an idea), but is in the spiritual unity of the faithful, regardless of the area in which they live. It is precisely the destruction of spiritual unity, in which the schismatics’ offer is directed. I do not know who inspired them; .... I do not intend to stand in the ranks of the destroyers of the Russian Church.

At the same time, we propose to consider the possibility of organizing a Bishops’ council in the United States, South America and Canada, a meeting, which may, following the example of the Russian Eminences’ meeting, resolve many questions.

Here, I set forth my personal opinion only, not so as to outright completely dismiss all the offers of the dissenters, but in order to show them that their opinion is not the sole point of view of our church members, nor is it uncontested. The final verdict on these matters should be carried out by the Bishops' Council.

According to the words of the Apostle Paul:

"I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall turn unto fables."(2 Tim 4.1-4)

By virtue of the power and authority given to me, I appeal once again to those who plan a schism in our Church:

If you really "earnestly seek to avoid a schism, and to find a form of church relations which best corresponds to the spirit of catholicity in the historical ROCA", then follow the spirit of catholicity of the historical ROCA. Do not trample on the rules and canons specifically established by the fathers for the avoidance of schisms and for eliminating disruption in the Church. Go the way of the legitimate canonical path. Let Bishops Andronik and Sophrony take part in the Council of Bishops in October, so that we can jointly discuss the existing situation and the ways out of it. There are no alternatives and there cannot be, insofar as this is the only way offered by the Fathers of the ROCOR in similar circumstances, and not only by the Fathers of the ROCOR, but also of the entire Orthodoxy.

First Hierarch of the ROCOR

• Metropolitan Agafangel

September 27 / October 10, New Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsa

---

I would like to know more about the absorption of the Far Eastern parishes [ Met Agafangel says "jurisdictions" - were there quite a few, and from various TOC's, then ? ] into the MP. I missed that entire chapter of TOC / Catacomb versus MP history.

[Barbara]

To attempt a guess at the answer to the question posed by the title of this thread is a hazardous business.

The antics of the schismatic faction, run principally by former Abp Andronik [Kotlaroff] and Mark Kotlaroff in the Western Hemisphere, would be laughable if they weren't deadly serious.

Reader Daniel in Oregon, a staunch defender of his Metropolitan, rightly dubbed this stubborn clique "Schismatic Church-Wreckers", as in home-wreckers on the jurisdictional scene.

How far are these dangerous opponents of Met Agafangel willing to go ? They seem rabid. They make statements which have no logic. Instead, the insults hurled sound like the work of demons that never made it out of high school. Such as, Met Agafangel is behaving like the notorious Met Sergius.
This assertion is preposterous. The worst complaints I myself have been able to pin down have been that the Odessa hierarch is hasty of judgment and quick to punish members of his clergy. Along with one cooked up story about a nun who was nearly defrocked but apparently has no basis in fact. Her example was just a way to get attention and sympathy for the schismatics.

The "New Believers" as Agafangel calls them, implying the Kotlaroff - Psarev group are as obstinate and obdurate as the Russian Old Believer sect, seem spiritually and intellectually immature to a shocking degree. I would wager that each prominent member of this clique is stuck in his or her teenage years emotionally. Why ? Because they do not argue in any civilized way, taking into account the statements of the opposing side. Like rageful kids, they interrupt rudely before the parent has finished his sentence to fling even more crazy, irrational epithets and whiny complaints.

"You are too tough on a poor little weakling me, Dad," is the undercurrent one hears through the deafening din of insults made by the rebel faction : "I am going to run away from home to get you back."
Indeed the entire rationale of the pending schism from ROCA seems to be no more sophisticated than this model !

[Maria]

Barbara, both Met. Agafangel and the dissident clergy seem to be puffing hot air in their remarks with lots of pride on both sides.

This whole scenario seems to be a very petty and uncanonical excuse for a schism. Where is the charge of heresy for which bishops and priests and laity may validly leave their bishop or Metropolitan?

Were any charges of heresy or ecumenism brought forth on either side?

[Maria]

Not being answered is why the Kallinikite bishops and priests in Russia protested going under Agafangel.

I heard that they did not like Met. Agafangel's ecumenism, nor his "cohabiting" with the MP priests. Is not having services with the MP a form of unfaithfulness or adultery. Is not allowing MP priests to concelebrate Divine Liturgies with Met. Agafangel's priests the pan-heresy of ecumenism? Is not allowing MP priests to mention both the MP and Met. Agafangel at the anaphora a heresy? What is happening here? Why has Archbishop Kallinikos been stoically silent in the fact of this heresy? What kind of leader is he?

I also heard that the Kallinikites did not like the idea of receiving Roman Catholics through confession of faith, and not baptism. In other words, Agafangel appears to be an ecumenist.

[Barbara]

No, there were no charges of heresy, Maria, and I don't think ecumenism was even much emphasized.
It only seems to be PERSONAL, against Met Agafangel.

I am not arguing that the Odessa hierarch is the best anywhere. But compared with his opposition, he looks angelic !
His opponents are rough and tough. All they trot out is this charge of harsh punishments and expelling clergy.
But the 2 Bishops who Agafangel did push away from his ROCA were the ones doing that 'cohabitating' - it SEEMS like
from what little hints we outsiders can gather. Met Agafangel asserted that these 2 had never joined his jurisdiction completely. They sounded like 'visiting Bishops' rather than permanent members of the ROCA Synod.
Then they insisting on attending some meeting - the nature of this meeting is hazy but seems to have been an MP function -
and when the 2 persisted, Agafangel cut them off. What's so bad about that ?

Kallistos ? You mean Archbishop Kallinikos. Kallistos Ware is the ultra World Orthodox figure, as we all know.
You are saying, then, that the GOC Russian section feels that Agafangel is too liberal for them. But it is not they who are
doing the lion's share of the protesting, as far as we can see. Maybe they are burning up the Russian Internet with angry statements. In Australia and North America, it's the Kotlaroff - Psarev group who seem to have the reins of the resistance movement firmly in their hands.

I appreciate any insights you have. I surely don't know much. I am speaking from what I read online. This potential schism looks ominous and I would like to see ROCA stay solidly together.

After all, what good will Bp Andrei [Psarev]'s new fragment do for the overall TOC image ? So many in World Orthodoxy will be making fun of us.

[Maria]

Thanks, Barbara, for pointing out my typo.

I have edited Kallistos to read Kallinikos.