The Synod of Met. Agafangel establishes “MP ROCOR(A)”
structures and defines the course to convene the “Local Sobor of the ROC”
with the purpose of “reestablishing canonical church administration of the ROC”
I. “Parishes of the Moscow patriarchate temporarily under the omophorion of the ROCOR(A)”.
The Synod of ROCOR(A) (one of the groups of ROCOR, headed by Met Agafangel (Pashkovsky) established the following status of “parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate temporarily under the omophorion of the ROCOR(A). The decision in this regard was adopted at the special synod meeting on May 27, 2011.
At this meeting the appeal was considered from the Moscow Patriarchate clergy from Izhevsk: Protopriests Sergei Kondakov, Mikhail Karpeev and Priest Alexander Malikh “to receive them and their faithful with the status of ROC Moscow Patriarchate parishes under the omophorion of ROCOR”.
During discussion of this issue Met. Agafangel expressed an “opinion regarding the potential possibility of such a decision.” As is recorded in the minutes of the the ROCOR(A) meeting, “the Chairman personally likes this idea, since such a precedent could serve as an important step in the matter of progressing toward a possible Local (Pomestny) Sobor of the free Orthodox Church of Russia.” Furthermore, Met. Agafangel himself noted that “there have been no such precedents set yet in the canonical practice of ROCOR.” After discussing this matter, the ROCOR(A) Synod satisfied the request of the MP clergy of Izhevsk, receiving them into communion “in the capacity of parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate within the structure of the Russian Church Abroad, temporarily under direct subordination to the First Hierarch, Met. Agafangel until “the re-establishment of a canonical church administration at the Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church.” (refer to the statement of the Izhevsk MP clergy dated 05/30/2011).
Instead of clarifying to the MP clergy seeking the Truth the fundamental view of ROCOR regarding the MP as a Sergianist schism and false-church (refer to the clarification by St. Philaret Voznesensky, Met. Anastasy Gribanovsky, Met. Vitaly Ustinov, Archbishop Averky Taushev, Bp. Gregory Grabbe, etc., the Synod of ROCOR(A), for the sake of increasing the numbers of parishes under its omophorion resorted to a gross violation of the traditional confession of faith of ROCOR, faithfulness to which is constantly spoken of by Met. Agafangel. Thereby, the Synod of ROCOR(A) not only deviated from the “traditional ROCOR confession of faith”, but as well essentially recognized the legality and equality of the Sergianist schism as well as the “Moscow Patriarchate” established on its basis by J. Stalin, as a church institution. After the Synod of Met. Laurus, this jurisdiction is the sole one which officially recognizes the MP as an equivalent “part of the Russian Church”.
This question bears a principle canonical and ecclesiological significance. One must note that prior to Stalinist times within the Russian Church, the organization known as the “Moscow Patriarchate”, did not exist as an institution in Russia. In the Russian Church there was the institution of the patriarchate, which was sometimes unofficially called the “patriarchal church”, but there was no institution known as the “Moscow Patriarchate”. Hence, in the official name of the Russian Church, the term “Moscow Patriarchate” did not exist. This is exclusively a Stalinist innovation. Therefore the very idea of creating within ROCOR a structure with a Stalinist name and abbreviation is nothing less than sacrilege. In essence this is a defamation of the podvig of the Holy New Martyrs and Catacomb Confessors.
Schism is a falling away from the Church, and not “part of the Church”. Such is the two thousand year old patristic Orthodox teaching. The Sergianist schism was created by the Soviet organs of the OGPU by the renovationists in 1927 by way of usurping Church authority. The newly formed structure was named the “Moscow Patriarchate” by the Soviet government. In 1943, on Stalin's orders, this newly formed structure conclusively acquired its completed form. Stalin appointed as its “patriarch” the former renovationist metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodsky), and the remains of the renovationist schism poured into its rank. This structure, newly created by Stalin was given a new name “ROC MP”, instead of the previous name under St. Patriarch Tikhon - “Russian Orthodox Church”. In this manner, the theomachistic regime, on the basis of the Sergian and and renovationist schism, artificially created a completely new structure, which, even by name, differed from the lawful Russian Church.
It is possible that within ROCOR(A) there is not yet a full understanding what they have done, but a fact remains a fact. This decision is equivalent in meaning to establishing parallel structures within ROCOR(A) of Greek Catholics, Monophisites or Arians. However, “there have not yet been such precedents in canonical practice” not only in ROCOR (as Met. Agafangel noted) but within the practice of universal Orthodoxy. The holy canons precisely regulate the rules and form of receiving persons from schisms or heretical associations. And in them there is not even a hint of the possibility of creating within the bosom of the Church various schismatic structures. And the fact that the MP is a schism and a heretical association has already been defined in the teachings of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia with whom St. Philaret Voznesensky and other outstanding ROCOR holy hierarchs were in complete solidarity.(see link).
From a political point of view, the decision to create a structure “Moscow Patriarchate under the omophorion of ROCOR(A)” (abbreviated: “MP ROCOR(A)” may appear to be tactically correct, however from a church-canonical perspective it is categorically unacceptable. Such a decision could only have been adopted as a consequence of the distortion of church canonical awareness and Orthodox teaching of the Church which occurred within ROCOR(A). This is a result of the unorthodox teaching of Met. Agafangel concerning the MP and ROCOR being “two parts of one Church”. Such a teaching is incompatible with True Orthodoxy and in its root contradicts the confession of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, who taught that the MP is a schism and heretical association, but under no circumstances a “part of the Church”.
It is noteworthy that the ROCOR(A) Synod and the MP clergy signed an Act on restoring relations, which, according to the words of those who signed it, is an alternative to the Act establishing communion between ROCOR(L) and the MP in 2007.
Commenting on this decision, the clergy of Izhevsk in a letter to MP Met. Nikolai of Izhevsk and Udmurtia announce that “while remaining priests within the Moscow Patriarchate, we have joined the Russian Church Abroad'”. In another statement, the Izhevsk clergy confirmed that they are preserving their status namely as clergy within the MP, clarifying, that they “have not departed from the Church which gave them birth through the Spirit”, and that they are temporarily remaining under the omophorion of Met. Agafangel “in the capacity of parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate”. (refer to the statement of the Izhevsk clergy on 05/30/2011).
In its essence this statement is reminiscent of the intercatholic movement of the sedevacans (from the Latin sedes-throne; vacans- vacant), who considered the Roman throne to be temporarily vacant because the current popes had deviated into modernism. In that situation, the sedevacans did not sever ties with the Roman Catholic church, although they maintain relations with the lefevrists and other traditional movements of the RCC. The patriarchal sedevacans (non-commemorators) also consider the MP itself to be completely lawful and Orthodox (just as the Catholic sedevacans consider the RCC to be lawful), however, in their opinion, the patriarchal throne, after the election of Kirill Gundyaev, has become temporarily vacant. This is confirmed by the Izhevsk MP clergy themselves, who in an interview to Portal-credo to the question “Have they separated themselves from the MP bishops?” clarified: “We are rejecting the patriarch, of course. For us the Moscow cathedra is dowager.”
Further, the clergy specified, that they have not risen in opposition against the MP as such, but against “the defects of the Church administration”. In their opinion “the Moscow Patriarchate, even under the yoke of sergianism and ecumenists attempted to preserve holy orthodoxy among its best representatives.” “We don't want to go anywhere from the Moscow Patriarchate for it is a grace-filled church organism, which has preserved its grace, the grace of God, despite all of these perversions. And we remain within the Moscow Patriarchate as within a grace-filled church organism, but we reject this graceless, administrative ruling structure,” said the clergy of “ROC MP temporarily under ROCOR(A) omophorion”, clarifying their position.
According to the words of a long time supporter of the idea of “unifying ROCOR with the healthy forces within the MP”, M. Nazarov, “this act, on the initiative of the Udmurtia clergy was formulated in a new way: not as a crossing over, but as a true unification of the healthy part of ROC MP with ROCOR... In this manner, the clergy of Udmurtia, canonically being under the omophorion of ROCOR as a part of the Russian Orthodox Church, at the same time consider themselves to the an independent part of ROC MP, which on its part is also only a part of the anticipated One Russian Orthodox Church”.
The head of ROCOR(A) also confirmed such a status for the MP parishes, stating, that “we, at the Synod of Bishops adopted the decision to receive the parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate under the pastorship of the hierarchy of ROCOR”. He stated, “such a decision, in essence, opens up a real path toward the coming Local Sobor of the ROC”, which, according to his thinking, could very plausibly include representatives of the “three parts of ROC” - ROCOR(A) itself, “MP parishes under the omophorion of ROCOR(A), and the inner-patriarchal catacomb movement “the Sekachevtsy” (under the guise of the Catacomb Church”, which are also under the omophorion of ROCOR(A).
A more detailed discussion on the idea of convening a “local sobor” within the framework of the ROCOR(A) structure will follow. But here one should direct one's attention to the canonical collision in which ROCOR(A) now finds itself. Pursuant to the logic of the latest decision of the Synod of Met. Agafangel, all hierarchs, clergy and parishes of ROCOR(A) on the territory of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States – transl.) from now on must be called not “ROCOR” but “MP ROCOR”, since all of them, without exception came over from the MP, including Met. Agafangel himself (just as did seven of his Russian bishops). Even the “Sekachevtsy” bishops and clergy of ROCOR(A) are not indigenous catacomb members, but came over in the 1990's from the MP. The status of all the parishes and clergy who came over from the MP does not differ from the status of the newly established “MP ROCOR” parishes. Contrary to the genuine Abroad parishes of the USA and Latin America (which are currently a minority within the structure of ROCOR(A)), the newly formed ROCOR(A) structures on post-Soviet territory were indigenous MP. Likewise the newly formed ROCOR(A) Synod, which functions not in the Abroad, but on post-Soviet territory, is comprised mostly of former MP people. Therefore, in accordance with the latest decision of the Synod of Met. Agafangel, it is more correct to call all those structures which came out of the MP “MP ROCOR(A)”. This will address the very essence of the newly established formations.
II. New tendencies within ROCOR(A) and their roots.
A theological-canonical assessment of the decisions of the Synod of Met. Agafangel is still to be made, however, even now it is clear that we have an opportunity to observe the inception of a completely new flow, which has nothing in common with the former ROCOR. Based on all we are seeing, in ROCOR(A) a tendency now prevails toward creating within the framework of the so called “Local Sobor”, another “Local Russian Church” comprised of the representatives of ROCOR(A), the MP and the “Sekachevtsy”. This is not a new idea. In particular it is being actively developed within the so called “Orthodox Russian Church” of the former colonel of the GRU USSR (equivalent of US CIA – transl.), Prokopiev, currently “Metropolitan” Raphael Motovilov. Claims to the status of “Local Church” are also being made by “RusOC-1” and “RusOC-2”. However, it appears that ROCOR(A) has adopted the “Raphael” scenario for a basis.
Speaking of the tendencies within ROCOR(A) it is imperative to focus on their ideological spokesmen. Within this context it is quite characteristic that ROCOR(A), besides instituting an “independent part of ROC MP”, has received from the “Raphaelian” sect a group of parishes headed by “metropolitan” Nikolai Modebadze. Having consecrated him bishop, the ROCOR(A) Synod appointed him vicar of the Synod Chairman “to serve Georgian parishes within the rank of ROCOR with the title “Bishop of Potina”. Furthermore when questioned about the legitimacy of the sacraments he performed while he was with the self-consecrated sect of Raphael Prokopiev, Met. Agafangel indicated that “all sacred ministry performed by the priest Nikolai in the past, could not be subject to doubt when he was being received into ROCOR.”
One should note, that the teaching of the “Raphaelites”, their telepathic-healing practice seriously contradicts the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the entry into ROCOR(A) of a group of “Raphaelite” parishes headed by Bishop Nikolai Modebadze cannot but affect the spiritual situation within ROCOR(A), as well as the spiritual practices of its clergy. The more ROCOR(A) receives into its ranks representatives of various dubious groups and movements (“Sekachevtsy”, “Raphaelites”, Ukrainian Autocephalites, etc.) the fewer are the numbers in its ranks of indigenous Abroad representatives of the former ROCOR, and the less ROCOR(A) has in common with the former ROCOR. Essentially, this is no longer ROCOR, but a completely new structure, functioning primarily on post-Soviet territory, using the old brand name of ROCOR.
Within the context of ROCOR(A) convening a so called “Local Sobor of ROC”, it is indicative, that the newly received “Raphaelite” hierarch Nikolai Modebadze had already tried to implement this idea within the “Raphaelite” midst. So, in 2003 he was one of the initiators of the “Unifying Sobor”, when the extra-sensory healer “metropolitan” Raphael Prokopiev was declared “First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.” It was then announced within this group that preparations were underway to convene a “Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church”, at which the institutions of supreme church authority in Russia would be re-established headed by an alternative “patriarch of Moscow and all Russia”. “Metropolitan” Raphael was nominated as candidate for the post of alternative “patriarch”, and he was declared “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne”. However, because of subsequent splits within this group, the venture to convene a “Local Sobor of the Russian Church”, and the election of an alternative “patriarch of Moscow” could not be carried out.
Judging from everything, currently the baton has been taken up by the head of ROCOR(A), Met. Agafangel, to convene the “Local Sobor of the ROC”. Having received into his group hierarchs from the “Sekachevtsy” and “Raphaelites”, and also instituting “parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate temporarily under the omophorion of ROCOR(A)”. he has in practice repeated the propositions of Raphael Prokopiev-Motovilov on “opening up a viable path toward the forthcoming Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church, since under our Synod of Bishops representatives of the two other parts of the Russian Church – the Catacomb and Moscow Patriarchate have united.”
Having officially announced the course toward convening the “Local Sobor of the ROC”, consisting of representatives of ROCOR(A) MP, and also “Sekachevtsy” and “Raphaelites”, the followers of ROCOR(A) have also already defined its objectives - “the re-establishment of canonical church administration at the Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church”. Traditionally such administration (rule) would imply the institute of the patriarchal throne. Therefore, it is not excluded, that in the foreseeable future, the first hierarch of ROCOR(A) will bear the title not only of “Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America, Archbishop of Taurida and Odessa, managing the dioceses of Odessa and Zaporozhie”, but also the title of “Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia”, as the head of the next “Local Russian Church”. This step may also receive the virtual telephone blessing of the deposed Patriach Yerenei of Jerusalem, with whom the head of ROCOR(A), not long ago by telephone established “prayer and eucharistic communion”.
However sad, such fears are not unfounded. The manner in which Bp. Agafangel obtained for himself the title “First Hierarch of ROCOR” gives cause for speculation.
As is broadly known, the “statement” by Bishop Daniel of Erie on the establishment of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority and the appointment of Bishop Agafangel as its head is a forgery. This was witnessed to by Bishop Daniel himself, who confirmed that he was “led into confusion” by the supporters of Bp. Agafangel, and that in fact he never even read the “statement on establishing a PSEA. Here are the original words of Bishop Daniel: “I never thought that ordained persons could be so shameless to say and do such falsehood.”
By yet another window dressing the title of “sixth first hierarch of ROCOR” was appropriated by Bishop Agafangel as well as “Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America”. To this end in 2008 a meeting of a small group of former ROCOR(L) clergy consisting of 30 persons was held, which was declared to be the “V Pan-Abroad Sobor”, when this small group could not in any way have claimed the status of “All Abroad” and the “fullness of ROCOR”. Nor were the protests of several authoritative clergy and laypersons of ROCOR, delegates at the Sobor taken into account, and as a sign of protest they were forced to leave ROCOR(A).
The creation of a ROCOR(A) hierarchy was uncanonical, the ordination of which was carried out through the gross interference into the internal affairs of the local Russian Church by representatives of the Greek Synod of Met. Cyprian, who is in a state of schism from the canonical synod of the TOC of Greece. Having received its consecrations from one of the Greek groups which unlawfully invaded the auspices of another Local Church, ROCOR(A) essentially forfeited its succession from the Russian Church and therefore in all regards is a new formation.
III. The Sekachevsty ecclesiology and ROCOR(A)
In the anticipated “Local Sobor”, it is expected, according to the words of Met. Agafangel, that besides ROCOR(A) and the MP, the Catacomb Church will participate. Whom does Met. Agafangel imply under the name “Catacomb Church”, is not difficult to surmise. He is speaking not of the Catacomb people but of the “Sekachevtsy”. It is quite obvious that he is counting on them.
This uncanonical group never fully severed its spiritual-canonical ties with the MP, because of which it is sometimes referred to as the “internal-patriarchal catacombs”.. Its founder, “Schemetropolitan Gennadii Sekach” until the end of his life was an officially ranking MP retired clergyman, and many of the secret “bishops” “consecrated” by him continued to officially serve as rank and file clergy within the MP (Anthony Piletsky, Heruvim Degtiar, Vasilii Belyak, Adrian Lapin, etc.) Furthermore, they permitted their flock to receive communion not only in their home churches but in MP churches. And one of the leaders of the “Sekachevtsy”, Epifanii Kaminsky, prior to going into schism in 1999, considered the entire Sekachevtsy movement to be one inexhorable whole with the MP, calling the latter “our Church”, and the Sergianist hierarchs “our hierarchs”. (refer to the letter of M. Epifanii to nun Irene, January, 1994).
The Catacomb clergy of Tikhon-Joseph succession never recognized the “Sekachevtsy” and forbade their flock to receive any of their ministry. This attitude toward the “Sekachevtsy” has been maintained even until now within the historical communities of the Catacomb Church. Also, the lawful ROCOR did not recognize “Sekachevtsy ordinations”. Thus, the ROCOR Sobor of Bishops in its Resolution from May 2/15, 1990 (Protocol #6) announced, that “The Sobor cannot recognize the canonicity of ordinations of this catacomb group”. Also the ROCOR Sobor of Bishops in 1990, concerning the absence of canonical hierarchical succession among the “Sekachevtsy” resolved, that “it does not find it possible, in view of the absence (or the inability to produce) required proof, to recognize the validity of apostolic succession and canonicity of the ordinations of these underground hierarchies”. (Record from the Chancellory of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, #4/77/133 from 2/15.8.1990). Therefore all clergy ordained by “Sekachevtsy” hierarchs were received by ROCOR exclusively through new, canonical consecrations, that is through hirotonia. Furthermore, if a “priest” was being received, ROCOR ordained him first as reader, and only after that to the rank of presbyter, as is required by the canons. This canonical principle was observed by ROCOR up until the signing of the Act on Unification with the MP. Unfortunately, within the Synod of ROCOR(A), this Sobor Resolution has been trampled upon.
Bp. Agafangel himself wrote concerning the Sekachevtsy group in 1994: “There exist also false-catacombs. They unite the faithful, who at one time had put their trust in people who claimed to be lawfully consecrated bishops , but in fact had no confirmation of their consecrations. According to Church Rules, bishops or priests with unconfirmed hirotonia are not received. (33rd Apostolic Rule).” (“Vestnik TOC”, No. 2, 1994).
However, already in 2008, having created his own group, Bp. Agafangel cardinally alters his views on this matter. Having rejected previous ROCOR Sobor Resolutions, the Synod of Met. Agafangel recognized the lawfulness of the self-consecrating “Sekachevtsy Hierarchy”, receiving into communion “bishops” Athanasy (Savitzky) and Ioann (Zaitsev). In this process, in order to remove any suspicion, additional hirotesias were performed over them, which are different from hirotonia, and are performed as a means of supplementing the hirotonia only over bishops and priests who prior to this have been ordained by lawful hierarchs but with some violation of canonical norms. It was precisely for this reason that the ROCOR Synod performed hirotesia over the Matthewite bishops of the TOC of Greece, the hierarchy of which originated from one bishop, when the canons require that no fewer than two or three bishops participate in episcopal consecrations. However, this precedent had absolutely nothing in common with the self-consecrated “Sekachevtsy” hierarchy, who have a complete absence of apostolic succession, and its originators Seraphim Pozdeev and Gennadii Sekach were never bishops.
ROCOR(A) is perfectly aware of this, however, they prefer to circumvent this issue. The “Sekachevtsy”ecclesiology is very suited to the new ideology of ROCOR(A) or “MP ROCOR(A)”. Therefore it is not surprising, that in laying the foundation for the idea of convening a “Local Sobor” consisting of the “three parts of the ROC”, Met. Agafangel leans not on the traditional communities of the Catacomb Church (of which there are none under the omophorion of ROCOR(A)), but on the “Sekachevtsy”, deliberately passing them off to be the “Catacomb Church”. Furthermore, those “Sekachevtsy” bishops and priests who came under the omophorion of ROCOR(A) had themselves come over to the “Sekachevtsy” from the Moscow Patriarchate only in the early 1990's and thereby have no connection to the Catacombs.
IV. The ROCOR(A) teaching on the “two parts of the one Church”
In examining the matter of instituting “MP ROCOR(A)” structures and announcing a course to convene a “Local ROC Sobor” with the purpose of “re-establishing a canonical church administration of ROC”, one should pay attention to not only the ecclesiology of the “Sekachevtsy” and “Raphaelites”, but that of Met. Agafangel himself. It appears, that on the given issue, his views are very close to the two aforementioned groups, and are even more liberal than the views of the Greek Synod of Resistance of Met. Cyprian. These views have simply not yet been formulated in a theological doctrine form.
However, even from his brief statements it is obvious that this ecclesiology seriously differs from not only the confession of faith of the Holy New Martyrs and Catacomb Confessors, but even St. Philaret (Voznesensky) and other outstanding holy hierarchs of ROCOR.
The Synod of Bishops of RTOC drew attention to this back in 2007, pointing out the unorthodoxy of Bp. Agafangel's theory on the “two parts of the Russian Church”. (link: “The Dubious Ecclesiology of Bp. Agafangel”).
At the time, it seemed to many that the RTOC Synod was exaggerating, and that Bp. Agafangel was gradually straightening out and rejecting his former errors. However, now it is obvious that he not only renounced those views but has now begun to actively implement them.
As was noted in the Resolution of the Third Pan-Russian Meeting of hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity of the RTOC on 9/22 December 2007, “Besides canonical violations on the part of Bp. Agafangel and the PSEA, between this newly formed group and the RTOC there are serious differences of an ecclesiological nature, primarily in the attitutude toward the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate and the New Calendar ecumenical so called “Official Orthodoxy.””
The RTOC then indicated that: “By calling the MP a “part of the one Church” Bp. Agafangel does not exclude the possibility of unification with the MP in the future after a so called “local sobor”... The idea of convening a “local sobor” occupies a key place in the ecclesiology of Bp. Agafangel. Let us quote a series of principle statements made by Bp. Agafangel on this subject:
1. “I, recognizing the desirability of unification of the two parts of the one Church, protested then and protest now against that form of unification which is described in the Act. I have proposed my own particular opinion of another form and scenario for unifying the separate parts of the Russian Church. I quote: “We can only temporarily, until the convening of a Local Council, mutually recognize or not recognize the lawfulness of the existence of certain or other parts of the Church with their existing church leadership, on the condition that there be a recognition of the absence as of today of a legitimately elected Supreme Church Authority... In achieving unanimity on the questions of ecumenism and sergianism, and mutual recognition of the supremacy in the ROC of the forthcoming Local Sobor, we can establish eucharistic union, without creating, naturally, a common supreme authority”. This will then be our canonical and eucharistic unity, necessary, according to the words of Fr. Nikolai, for mutual participation in the II Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church. In this manner, in my proposal on the unification there will be no impediments to convening the Local Council” (Bp. Agafangel, June 2, 2006).
“In my understanding, the basic sin of sergianism lies in violating the dogma on conciliarity in the Church. In this sense, the very action of conducting a free Local Sobor of the MP (similar to our Pan-Abroad Sobors) will then be the best evidence of repentance for the sin of sergianism and the re-establishment of a conciliar order.. Regarding the Local Sobor, I can only repeat what I wrote earlier – the establishment of eucharistic ties upon mutually recognizing a common ecclesiology and preserving the existing status of the parts of the Local Russian Church is amply sufficient for joint particiation in the Local Sobor, which alone is authorized to define the legitimate canonical arrangement of the fullness of the Russian Church.” (Bp. Agafangel, Sept. 12,2006).
“The result of the Local Sobor of all the parts of the Church must become the “Act on the reunification of the separated parts of the Russian Church” and a common hierarchy ratified by concensus.” (Bp. Agafangel, April30, 2006).
“We all sincerely desire the unity of the Russian Church, however we feel that the time for this has not yet come... We cannot recognize Patriarch Alexei II as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, since such can only be elected by a Local Sobor of the ROC, which has not been convened since 1918.(Bp. Agafangel, October 12, 2006).
“We have proposed a different variant for building our relations with the MP and we hope that our Synod will review this plan.” (Bp. Agafangel, October 16, 2006). “Our diocesan meeting appeals to the Synod with a request to review this proposal, since we are convinced, that its adoption will protect our Church from a split and will bring the process of rapprochement into a calm, constructive framework.” (Bp. Agafangel, October 12, 2006).
[/i]
Even from these few quotes it is obvious that in the dialogue on the “unification of the two parts of the one Church” Bp. Agafangel sees the main problem to be the need to convene a joint “local sobor” with the MP in which he too would be able to participate on equal footing with the MP hierarchs/.../
Through these facts and statements one may make a judgment on the real “ecclesiology” of Bp. Agafangel and his true attitude toward the heresy of ecumenism”. (Link: Resolution ot the 333 Pan Russian Meeting of hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laiety of RTOC, 9/22 December, 2007)
It is evident that Met. Agafangel (Pashkovsky) is quite consistent in his confession of the MP and ROCOR as being “two parts of one Church”. Therefore in making his decision on establishing the structures “MP ROCOR(A)” there is nothing surprising or new. From Met. Agafangel's quotes cited above it is clear that for him the problem does not lie in ecclesiological or canonical differences between the MP and TOC. It is evident that Met. Agafangel sees the main problem as the administrative impediment, and not the uncanonicity of the current MP patriarch, just as Alexei II – in the absence of a “conciliar decision” on the patriarchal rank as the head of the MP (“We cannot recognize Patriarch Alexei II as head of the entire Russian Orthodox Church, since only a Local Sobor of ROC can elect him as such, not having been convened since 1918.” Met. Agafangel). Thus, Met. Agafangel's idea of a Local Sobor eclipses the traditional confession of ROCOR, the attitude toward the sergianist schism and the heresy of ecumenism, anathematized at the ROCOR Sobor of 1983. And the creation of “MP ROCOR(A)” makes possible the future unification with the MP, circumventing issues of canonical impediments, the uncanonical creation of the MP in the 1930-40 period on the basis of the sergianist and renovationist schisms, ROCOR's conciliar anathema of the heresy of ecumenism, etc., and thereby brings closer, the anticipated “local sobor”.
Met. Agafangel's teaching on the MP and ROCOR being “two parts of the one Church” is incompatible with True Orthodoxy and at its root contradicts the confession of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia who taught that the MP is a schism and assembly of heretics, but in no way is it a “part of the Church”. This unorthodox teaching is unacceptable for the TOC. Met. Agafangel himself understands this, for he had several times emphasized that ROCOR(A) out of principle has nothing common with the TOC. Just as the MP views the TOC as “sectarianism”, so does Met. Agafangel. However, unlike ROCOR(A), the historic ROCOR always confessed its oneness and unity namely with the TOC and not the MP. And it always considered the TOC to be Church in the homeland, and not the MP. All of this yet again confirms that the structure formed by Met. Agafangel has nothing in common with the historic ROCOR. This newly formed offshoot of the apostatic ROCOR(L) formed in 2007 can more likely be classified as a type of intermediate structure between apostatic “Official Orthodoxy” and True Orthodoxy, but with a clearly expressed leaning toward “Official Orthodoxy”.
In this connection, the warnings published back in 2008 in the Journal of the Society of the Most Blessed Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky “Fidelity” (#108, May 28, 2008) concerning the real danger in the future of concluding a new union between the representatives of ROCOR(A) and the MP on new, more “universal conditions” remain very actual.
Office of the Synod of Bishops RTOC
23 May/5 June, 2011, Holy Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council
Источник: сайт "Церковные Ведомости"
