A new "walling off" has begun?

[priestmark]

http://www.synodinresistance.gr/Dioikis ... Jul-04.pdf

The Holy Synod in Resistance and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

Statement on the Recent Rapprochement Between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) is that part of the Russian Church that fled Russia after the 1917 Revolution and which was dispersed throughout Europe, America, Asia, and Australia. It was established on canonical grounds with approval from St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (1919, 1920, 1922), from the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1920),and from the Serbian Orthodox Church, which hosted it (1921-). It has maintained no communion with the Moscow Patriarchate on the grounds of its special relations with the atheistic and anti-ecclesiastical Soviet régime, relations which became fully established after the repose of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon (1925), when Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhegorod, whom the government had designated Locum Tenens of the vacant Patriarchal throne, made his notorious "Declaration" of loyalty to the Soviets in 1927 ("Sergianism").

Code: Select all

    The ROCA formed a synodal jurisdiction on the basis of the foregoing, having as its Chief Prelates Metropolitans Anthony (+1936), Anastassy (+1965), Philaret (+1985), Vitaly (retired, 2001), and at present Metropolitan Laurus (2001-), constituting thereby the free part of the historical Russian Church and maintaining its rich ecclesiastical heritage.

For this reason, it was from the very outset opposed to the spirit of innovation, reform, and ecumenism. It has always followed the traditional Church Calendar, and in 1983 it issued a synodal condemnation of ecumenism.

This stand led the ROCA to the gradual cessation, particularly after the Second World War, and especially since 1965, of all communion with the other local Orthodox Churches, with which, up to that point, it had maintained unofficial or informal relations.

B. Relations with the Greek Old Calendarists

In 1960, in the U.S.A, and in 1962, in Greece, the ROCA Consecrated Bishops for the Greek Old Calendarists, who, after the calendar change of 1924, were organized as a separate ecclesiastical community.

In 1969, the Holy Synod of the ROCA, under Metropolitan Philaret, recognized these Consecrations and entered into full ecclesiastical communion with them. The Greek Old Calendarists were at the time under the jurisdiction of the ever-memorable Archbishop Auxentios, with whom the ROCA broke communion, however, in 1978, on the grounds of canonical infractions on the part of the Greeks.

The ROCA, under Metropolitan Vitaly, opened full ecclesiastical communion with the Romanian Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Vlasie in 1992; then, in the year 1994, with the Greek Old Calendarists under Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, as well as the Bulgarian Old Calendarists under Bishop Photii of Triaditza.

C. Rapprochement Between the ROCA and Moscow

The ten-year-old union of the ROCA and the Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian Old Calendarists had as its basis, aside from the obvious need for mutual reinforcement and support, a common anti-ecumenical self-consciousness, manifested primarily in the cessation of communion with all of the "official" local Orthodox Churches, which participate in the ecumenical movement and are active members of the World Council of Churches (1948-), and also a concerted, and therefore more effective, confrontation of the proliferation of ecumenism within the local Orthodox Churches.

However, over time it became obvious that the ROCA was going through a progressive crisis with regard to its ecclesiological identity; and its overtures, albeit unofficial at the outset, towards the Moscow Patriarchate (beginning in 2000),and towards the ecumenist jurisdictions in general provoked initial disquietude in the Holy Synod in Resistance, a fruit of which was, first and foremost, an official letter (Protocol No.340/1 January 2001) addressed to the Holy Synod of the ROCA by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, President of the Synod in Resistance.

In this letter, with the consent of the Holy Synod, His Eminence wrote the following, among other things:

"Our Holy Synod is resolved, by the Grace of God, to continue, in response to the confidence placed in it by its pious and anguished flock, refraining -- as it has hitherto -- from direct or indirect communion with the Orthodox ecumenists."

His Eminence also pointed out to our Russian brethren that "you are, in essence, on a steady course towards the gradual relinquishment of the glorious anti-ecumenist tradition of your Church that has been fostered during the past thirty-five years and which has been expounded with singular theological clarity."

With the elevation of a new Chief Hierarch for the ROCA in October of 2001, which provoked a schism within its ranks by reason of this new direction, the Synod in Resistance maintained communion with Metropolitan Laurus and the Bishops with him because, in spite of its reservations, it was satisfied that the policy statements of the new Primate were genuinely Orthodox and because it viewed as hyperbolic the complaints of those outside and within Russia who, albeit after the fact, did not recognize his election.

Notwithstanding this, already last year (in 2003), the situation began to give rise to justifiable concern, in particular because of the vigorous promotion of a clearly new direction in the ROCA, in spite of its statements and confirmations to the contrary.

Precisely because of this unpleasant development, Metropolitan Cyprian, in a number of memoranda to the ROCA, expressed the opposition of our Synod in Resistance to the steps being taken by the ROCA, that is, its rapprochement with Moscow, reminding its Bishops at all times that, even if the other reasons for separation from the Moscow Patriarchate were regarded as essentially no longer valid, there was still one absolutely insurmountable impediment to union; namely, the heresy of ecumenism.

D. The Acceleration of Contacts Towards Rapprochement

Unfortunately, contacts and overtures between the ROCA and Moscow have increased and accelerated, and this with intense pressure from the Russian authorities, using the Moscow Patriarchate as the primary tool for exerting such pressure, and, to be sure, with the guiding influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church over certain elements in the ROCA. The most important steps in this journey towards union were the following:

1) The meeting in New York City, in September 2003, of Hierarchical representatives of the ROCA with the President of Russia [an ex-KGB General - trans.], Vladimir Putin;

2) The meeting in Moscow, in November 2003, of Hierarchical representatives of the ROCA with Patriarch Alexis and members of the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate;

3) The official visit to Moscow, in May 2004, of Metropolitan Laurus, during which, in an atmosphere of prayerful communion, a dialogue concerning union was conducted and it was decided to establish a Committee for Dialogue and to set the agenda for union discussions;

4) The inauguration, in June 2004, of the the work of the Committee for Dialogue in Moscow, and the elaboration of common statements of agreement to be submitted to the respective Hierarchs of each Church for evaluation.

Anticipating the meeting of the full Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate in October and the usual meeting of the full Synod of the ROCA at the beginning of 2005, we may conclude that these developments will be very swift and dramatic.

Official voices in both the ROCA and the Moscow Patriarchate assure us that, in fact, this union has been decided upon and that its accomplishment is now a matter of time, since the things that unite them, as they tellingly put it, are very cogent, whereas the things that divide them, are matters of secondary importance, including the issue of ecumenism.

E. The Resisters in the Face of These Developments

The Holy Synod in Resistance, in common thought with our Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist brethren, are following these developments, with which, of course, they are prima facie in disagreement at a root level, with attention and prayer.

With regard to the issue of immediate and official cessation of communion with the ROCA so quickly after the initiation of these proceedings towards rapprochement, we have not deemed such final action to be the most efficacious solution, but have decided to continue gradually distancing ourselves from this situation, keeping in mind that, for several years now, we have, in effect, had almost no communion with the ROCA. It is our intention to exercise benevolent influence in a healthy direction over the various factions within the ROCA.

In the face of these truly dramatic developments, even if we are nearing the boundaries of economy, we consider it preferable to maintain our stand of forbearance in delaying official and definitive cessation of communion with the ROCA, in the hope that this planned union will be averted by some miraculous intervention, calling upon the intercessions of the Most Blessed Theotokos and all the Saints, and especially the New Martyrs of Russia and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, by whose special protection and guidance our communion with the ROCA was, from the beginning, accomplished.

If and when the union of a portion of the ROCA with Moscow becomes certain, definite, and irrevocable (God forbid!), we will immediately cease communion with that group, continuing our communion with the remaining portion of the Church, if they should, indeed, wish such communion -- providing, of course, that they also maintain a clear anti-ecumenical stance, refusing communion with the ecumenists, whether directly or indirectly.

From the Secretariat of the Holy Synod in Resistance, Fili, Attika

20 July 2004 (Old Style)
Holy and Glorious Prophet Elias the Thesbite

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

How long ago was it that ROCA declared their new ecclesiaology that they shared the "exact same faith" as the Cyprianites? 10 Years? While it has always seemed to me this was nothing more than a stepping stone, a way to declare the MP had grace while at the same time affirming a "traditional" stand, it demonstrates what a great contempt for the faith these ROCA bishops now have. In other words, they treat the faith like it was a servant to their "foreign policy", a flavor of the day.

[priestmark]

what a great contempt for the faith these ROCA bishops now have

This is neither true collectively, nor, do I believe, individually. As always, it is not black or white. I have a lot of problems with things right now, but to accuse these bishops of contempt for the faith is really out there. I don't believe your hierarchy would come close to any such judgment either.

There is clearly not a monolithic perspective even amongst the hierarchy. After the Jackson NJ and Liberty TN letters and appeals were made public (semi-public really since no one seems to have seen them) in June/July, the usual black/white accusers in ROCOR accused several ROCA bishops (Gabriel, Daniel, Agathagel) and clerical signators of certain letters, of conspiracy to schism. They are really wrong too.

Like Fili, I have been looking for "this planned union will be averted by some miraculous intervention" by praying to St John of Shanghai and SF, St Seraphim, and specifically to St Elijah who has interceded in protecting from storms before. I expected something on St Seraphim's or St Elijah's Days (Jul 19/20 = Aug 1/2 ns). Maybe this statement from Fili is all the miracle I'm going to get this year. The timing was right!

One interesting aspect of the Fili statement is the apparent invitation to those who would remain apart from the MP assimilation to join them. This is the first public statement I have seen that is so bold. In private mail they are Ionni's come lately, and would only place fourth to arrive were they to approach me - which I'm sure they will not.

----- Original Message -----
From: "michael nikitin" nikitinmike@yahoo.com
To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 10:42 AM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Exiled Church Splits

August 12, 2004
Wall St. Jrnl

In Unorthodox Rift, Exiled Church Splits On Rejoining Russia
Putin's Push for Reunification Meets Resistance in U.S.;
Longing for Days of Czars

By AVERY JOHNSON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 12, 2004; Page A1

Two banners wrapped in brown burlap sit tucked away amid golden icons and dripping candles in a mansion on Manhattan's Upper East Side. The pole to which the banners are attached bears a plaque that encapsulates the divide in the Russian Orthodox Church: "To be kept by the Church Abroad until such a time that they may be returned to a free Russia."

Some 13 years after the Soviet Union disintegrated, members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, more commonly known as the Church Abroad, cannot agree on whether Russia is "free" -- that is, free enough to return the banners to the motherland and reunite the emigre church with the one that remained behind when the czars fell.

Two camps have emerged within the Church Abroad.

Leading one faction is Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain, a small wiry man with a long beard. He grew up as a Protestant in what was then East Germany, fell in love with Russian culture and converted to Orthodoxy. Impressed by the physical resurrection of churches in Russia, the spiritual yearning of its people and the religious stirrings of President Vladimir Putin, Archbishop Mark, who is based in Munich, is pushing for a merger of the Church Abroad with the church that stayed behind and cut a deal with the Communists.

"The first paragraph of our statutes says we are a temporarily self-governing body until the moment of the fall of the Communist regime," he says. "It's a clear-cut statement ... that we are overdue on living up to."

Heading the other camp is Bishop Gabriel of Manhattan, whose great-grandfather was starved to death by the Communists in the 1930s because he refused to bow to them. A stout man whose parents fled Russia in 1926 and eventually settled in Australia, Bishop Gabriel says Mr. Putin's Russia still resembles the totalitarian country his forebears fled. The leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as the Moscow church is known, are the same ones who led the church to kneel before Soviet atheism, he contends. "The church in Russia needs to recognize that its path was wrong," he says.

It all goes back to 1054, when Orthodoxy and Catholicism split, creating separate power centers in Constantinople and Rome. The sacking of Constantinople, from which Greek Orthodoxy eventually sprang, in 1453 led Moscow to assert itself as the "Third Rome." Over time, the Russian church and state grew closer, especially after the Romanovs, the royal family, consolidated their power in the 1600s.

When the Bolsheviks seized control of Russia in 1917, they stripped the Moscow Patriarchate of its property, dynamited its churches and slaughtered the royal family. The leader of the Moscow Patriarchate died in jail. His successor, Metropolitan Sergius, won his freedom in 1927 by pledging allegiance to the Soviets.

Surviving Russian aristocrats and clergy formed the Church Abroad in what was then Yugoslavia to preserve the religion of the czars until Russians were free to worship at home again. A southern regiment in the czar's army entrusted to the exiled church the banners, which feature a two-headed imperial eagle, the likeness of Saint George the dragon-slayer and an "N" for Czar Nicholas I. The Church Abroad, which claims about 100,000 members world-wide and has parishes in many parts of the U.S., moved its headquarters to New York in 1950. (A separate offshoot of Russian Orthodoxy, known as the Orthodox Church in America, cut its ties with Moscow in the 1970s. Its 750,000 members conduct services in English and stress their American identity. Reunification isn't an issue for them, having long ago made peace with the Moscow Patriarchate.)

For generations, adherents of the Church Abroad tried to recreate the glorious days of the Romanovs. They used their royal titles, raised their children to read Pushkin in the original Russian and threw formal balls at ritzy New York hotels. Their church holds services mostly in Old Church Slavonic, an older form of Russian. Feast-day ceremonies last upward of five hours. Only a few members of the church ever talked about reuniting with Moscow.

Last year, Mr. Putin intervened, hoping to bring back together the two branches of Russian Orthodoxy in an effort to restore a national identity to a country ripped apart by the Soviet Union's collapse.

"In the ideological vacuum that is post-Soviet Russia, the most potent collection of symbols that attract automatic loyalty are those of Russian Orthodoxy," says Lawrence Uzzell, director of International Religious Freedom Watch. "For Putin, church and state are like mom and apple pie."

On Sept. 25, 2003, taking a break from a three-day visit to the United Nations, Mr. Putin met with bishops of the Church Abroad at the Russian Consulate in New York. The robed bishops and the former KGB-operative-turned-president lunched on cabbage soup, salmon and blini with caviar. Mr. Putin talked about the church's central role in the
reconciliation of Russia, Bishop Gabriel recalls. The bishop asked him about creating a day of remembrance for those killed by Soviet communism; Mr. Putin said he'd think about it.

The Russian president passed along an invitation to visit Moscow from the head of the Moscow Patriarchate, Alexy II, who has been trying to reunite the churches for the past decade. After much deliberation, the Church Abroad in May sent its leader, Metropolitan Laurus, who is based at the church's monastery in Jordanville, N.Y., and Archbishop Mark and others to Russia. They prayed at the remains of their martyred former leader, at the site where the royal family was slaughtered and at the mineshaft where some of the royal remains were thrown. After meeting with Mr. Putin in his private residence outside Moscow, leaders of the two churches pledged to try to mend their differences.

Back in the U.S., this flirtation with reunification sparked an outcry. "Putin is using the church for his own goals," seethes Peter Koltypin, 70, who favors a return to the monarchy in Russia. He and 500 others presented a petition to a conference of Church Abroad bishops in July, asking that the leadership confer with the laity before proceeding further.

Opponents of unification now rally the faithful on a Yahoo group [?which one?] , at their Upper East Side and suburban New York homes, and at lunches after Sunday service. The Church Abroad's headquarters, at the corner of 93rd Street and Park Avenue in Manhattan, doubles as a chapel.

Over borscht and bologna at the mansion, Marina Ledkovsky, 80, a distant cousin of writer Vladimir Nabokov, decries the move toward reconciliation. Mr. Putin is "the same as Lenin and Stalin," she says.

Most of the descendents of Russians who backed the Romanov dynasty in the 1920s want to keep the Church Abroad separate from Moscow. But some are defecting, realizing that their children and grandchildren don't much care who did what to whom in 1927. Says Prince Nicholas Romanov, a Swiss resident who leads one branch of the royal family: "If we Romanovs can forgive and forget, then it is time to move on."

Committees of the two churches met in June in Moscow and have planned another meeting in Germany in September. The thorniest issue remains Metropolitan Sergius's 1927 pledge of allegiance to the Soviets. Some in the Church Abroad want an official apology. Others say the Moscow Patriarchate has already tacitly renounced Sergius's actions. The final decision on reunification is up to each church's council of bishops.

In the meantime, the two churches are inching closer. Earlier this summer, an artifact known as the Miracle-working Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, which had been spirited out of the Soviet Union after World War II and held by a priest in Chicago, was returned to Russia. During its June visit to Moscow, the Church Abroad's delegation worshipped [sic] the icon in an all-night vigil with Russian orthodox faithful at the Church of Christ the Savior, a massive white structure erected in 2000 on the spot where the Soviets razed the original church and replaced it with a swimming pool.

Write to Avery Johnson at avery.johnson@WSJ.com1

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Fr. Mark,

I have recently had discussions with some people regarding this, one a layman and another person who will remain nameless. We shared much the same opinion that things are not at all black and white - far from it. (Of course I don't mean to imply this is more than just a few peoples opinion)

The one concensus we all seemed to share however is that things look very bad, and that sharing the same faith and communion with the Cyprianites was, at the very least, a schismatic act even though none of our bishops have named it so.

So I do agree with you that things are not at all black and white. I feel, as others, that there is still this process of honest people, who have stuck with the ship until its last dying moment, coming out to find shelter when they see there can be no more hope; and that if they have their roots in the ROCOR previous to 1994, that they should be (personal opinion here) simply received by welcoming them. After 1994, I will concede to the judgement of the Bishops.

I do know there is at least one bishop who is opposed, possibly more, and maybe even more priests and layman. By me saying there is a "contempt" for the faith I simply mean that in general, there is a certain contempt that has grabbed hold of the ROCOR, has carried it into communion with the Cyprianites, and seems to be doing much worse now.

[ania]

what a great contempt for the faith these ROCA bishops now have

Like Fili, I have been looking for "this planned union will be averted by some miraculous intervention" by praying to St John of Shanghai and SF, St Seraphim, and specifically to St Elijah who has interceded in protecting from storms before. I expected something on St Seraphim's or St Elijah's Days (Jul 19/20 = Aug 1/2 ns). Maybe this statement from Fili is all the miracle I'm going to get this year. The timing was right!

Dear Fr. Mark,
I can tell you that something did happen on St. Seraphim’s. It was in Sea Cliff, at their parish feast, where Vl. Lavr was insulted and patronized to his face by several people, not least of all the parish priest himself, in front of the entire parish, as well as visitors. It was highly distressing to watch & listen to, which I did, sitting not 20 feet from the head table. There was an all out battle basically, and I am surprised that no one is talking about it, here or on other forums.

[Justin Kissel]

an official letter (Protocol No.340/1 January 2001) addressed to the Holy Synod of the ROCA

For those who haven't read this letter, it can be found on this thread.

[Etienne]

This is a very sad thread. And confusing too. The Church Abroad appears to be making a huge change in direction which does NOT seem to be a response in love to a significant shift by the ROC-MP. At a purely worldly level one may see a sense to it, but judged by those standards we have clung to for years it appears to have both the appearance of haste and a potential betrayal.

Fili has long had an ecclesiology which is if nothing else stable, whether you agree with it or not, so I am somewhat confused as to why they appear to be getting stick from some contributors? Perhaps I have simply missed the point, in which case a little enlightenment would be welcome.

If you look at this development and reflect on the recent visit by the Oecumenical Patriarch to Rome, and the joint statement issued by Pope and Patriarch, a concern among faithful clergy and believers is doubly understandable.