Lord Have Mercy!

[romiosini]

Lord Have Mercy!

[Justin Kissel]

Indeed it was interesting! I found the letter from Met. Philaret to Abbess Magdalena (Lesna convent) to be of particular interest.

I am accused of excessive strictness and of "fanaticism". But I have sufficient basis for holding to my point of view, for behind me stand great authorities, both ancient and contemporary.

"There is a shameful peace, and there is a good and praiseworthy division", says Saint Gregory. And the context of these words clearly indicates that he had in view those who had broken away... who had gone off into schism.

Continuing to expound his thoughts, Saint John Chrysostom finally draws his conclusionÑinevitable and incontrovertible: "I do say and affirm that schism is just as terrible an evil as heresy." And heresy separates the human soul from the Church, from God, and from salvation.

[Justin Kissel]

I've found the Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Abbess Magdalena to be so profound, and indeed relevant to my own current position, that I'd like to make a few comments. These comments are not meant to be taken as some type of proof that Met. Philaret believed totally and unshakably this or that, or that ROCOR itself believed totally and unshakably this or that. I do not look in any document for such concrete positions, least of all in a private letter. This post is only about the comments of a sinful laymen as he reads the opinions of one of ROCOR's former first hierarchs (and a man some consider to be a saint).

You most likely recall that, not during my last visit to the Convent, but during the one previous to it, you and I had somewhat of an argument over the fact that the [Lesna] Convent receives into its church those who, in essence, are followers, members of the former Exarchate [the Parisian Schism]

One of the first thing I noticed about this letter from Met. Philaret was how it suggested a much more combative nature than I generally hear about. By combative I mean, of course, combatting those ideas which are unorthodox, and rebuking those who hold to them. Met. Philaret is not only strict and (rhetorically) strong and confrontational in this letter, but we can also see that he was similarly combative in real life, at least when he needs to be.

Otherwise what is the outcome? The outcome is that everything with them is in order, and there is no need for them to change or correct anything. And we, by admitting them to the Mysteries and not demanding any integrity or constancy in this regard, confirm them more strongly in the conviction that everything is fine with them and that their path is the true and correct path.

Met. Philaret had just said that if the people communed at the ROCOR monastery in Lesna, then they shouldn't commune with the churches as the "former exarchate." Now, Met. Philaret says something that he repeats again throughout his letter, and which is totally relevant today: if not more today. Met. Philaret says that we must take actions that might seem drastic to some, because that is what will knock people out of believing that "everything's fine" (when in fact it's not).

At the Third Pan-Diaspora Sobor' they started making speeches about how we should unite with the Parisians and with the American False-Autocephalites "in a spirit of love". Love, you see, should unite us, and there is no need to emphasize our differences.

What could this sarcastic last sentence mean? "Emphasize our differences"? And what would happen if we today were to "emphasize the differences" between ROCOR and others? Can differences be so immense that Met. Philaret calls some of the practices of Parisians "the Exarchate contagion" in his letter? Is the language used today really so far out there in comparison?

But such talk ceased when I cited the words of one of the Holy Fathers which read thus: if we, supposedly in the name of love, so as not to trouble our neighbors, are going to keep quiet about their error and not explain to them that they are on a false path, then this is not love, but hatred! Does he do well who, upon seeing a blind man approaching a precipice, does not tell him about it, so as not to "trouble" him? Is that then love?

And if someone were to say these things, or even to quote them, what would the reaction of most be? What if I were to quote these words? Would I be called a hate-monger? Someone who was divisive or had no love? But how then shall I look on Met. Philaret? Please do not tell me "well this was in a private letter, so it's none of our business". The patristic witness is filled with private letters. Some of the most important dogmatic writings we have are found in private letters. Even some of the Scriptural books were originally meant to be "private" letters. No, if one of my hierarchs says something, and it reaches my ears, I cannot ignore it unless there is good reason to. What good reason is there to ignore this strong letter, when this is exactly the type of power we need in this age of corruption and error?

I am accused of excessive strictness and of "fanaticism". But I have sufficient basis for holding to my point of view, for behind me stand great authorities, both ancient and contemporary.

So Met. Philaret admits that he is accused of excessive strictness and fanaticism. Perhaps those in other groups are not so very far off after all in their understanding of Met. Philaret. From what I've read of Met. Philaret, he wasn't excessively strict and fanatical, but only stricter than most, and zealous for the purity of the faith. But zeal can come off as sinful and overly strict to those who are overly focused on love.

Met. Philaret does not base his views on his own opinions or whims, but on what the divinely guided teachers of the Church have taught him. By "taught" I don't mean just intellectually, but what they have taught him about the spirit and tone of Orthodoxy, and what they may have taught him through the intimate communion over many years that Met. Philaret had with them. Met. Philaret was a hand, the saints an arm and a shoulder: and the hand learnt to work in perfect coordination with the rest of the body of Christ.

To prove his point, Met. Philaret quotes the Scripture, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Basil the Great, among other patristic witnesses. He brings forward many powerful witnesses, including the idea that not even the blood of martyrdom can erase the errors of schism. For those who think the idea of schism is no big deal, or doesn't effect them, think about that idea for a second. Are you a schismatic? I ask myself the same question. I don't believe that I am. But what of tomorrow? My salvation depends on my answer. as does everyone else’s. Met. Philaret quotes St. John Chrysostom:

I say this for those who indiscriminately go to all churches... both to ours and to those of the schismatics. If they teach differently than we do then for that very reason, of course, one ought not go to them. But if they teach the very same as we do then all the more cause why one ought not to go to them, for here is the sin of lust of authority...

Someone might dismiss this quote, saying that they have no "lust of authority". Alright, for the sake of (avoiding an) argument I'll agree. But what of the rest of the quote? A paradox stares at us. St. John speaks of schismatics who "teach the very same thing as we do"! What is needed for communion with others is not only agreement in theological matters. This is an important thing to remember in our days of ecumenical discussions, where reaching communion has been reduced to “resolving issues” over a cup of coffee. Met. Philaret continues, interpreting a passage of St. John Chrysostom:

...schism is graceless. Christ was not divided, and His grace is one. If one is to believe in the "state of grace" of schism, then one must either admit that we do not have grace, those who broke away having taken it with them; or else admit that there are two graces (and obviously two true Churches, for grace is given only in the true Church). Continuing to expound his thoughts, Saint John Chrysostom finally draws his conclusionÑinevitable and incontrovertible: "I do say and affirm that schism is just as terrible an evil as heresy." And heresy separates the human soul from the Church, from God, and from salvation.

Heresy (such as Arianism) and a schism are, of course, different. But on the practical level, the end result is the same: being cut off from God, being outside the body of Christ, being walled off from salvation. But lest I misrepresent Met. Philaret, this sentence is also important:

I do not dare to pronounce judgment on our contemporary founder of schism, Metropolitan Evlogy; but I fear for his soul and I fear for all those who have been deceived by him and his successors and have been carried away into schism.

Met. Philaret also says:

And I cannot understand the position taken on this issue by the late Vladyka John a true minister of God and a man of God. [St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco] Why didn't he "dot the i " from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians the total falsehood of their path and position? For it is precisely because of this, because it was not stated at once and clearly where the truth is and where falsehood (for two truths there cannot be), where is white and where black, where light and where darkness, which path is correct and which incorrect, there would not now exist this "interjurisdictional hodgepodge" and the position would be clear.

I do not say anything about the greatest saint of our times, St. John. But today, if people are "clear," they are still accused of being excessively strict and phanatical, just like Met. Philaret. Today they are said to be "sectarian," which is seen as the opposite of ecumenistic. But would we say the same thing of Met. Philaret?

That fact, that many from among the "Orthodox" indiscriminately attend what ever church, what does it tell us? Why simply that people do not hold the truth dear. For this very reason they don't bother giving the matter much thought. "The services are identical, everything is the same what need is there to philosophize?" ...If only people loved the truth and cherished it would they really be content with such indifference? No, and a thousand times no! Their soul would ache, and it would not rest content until it had discovered where is the truth, which can only be one for two truths cannot be.

[Savva24]

Met. Philaret also says:

And I cannot understand the position taken on this issue by the late Vladyka John a true minister of God and a man of God. [St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco] Why didn't he "dot the i " from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians the total falsehood of their path and position? For it is precisely because of this, because it was not stated at once and clearly where the truth is and where falsehood (for two truths there cannot be), where is white and where black, where light and where darkness, which path is correct and which incorrect, there would not now exist this "interjurisdictional hodgepodge" and the position would be clear.

I do not say anything about the greatest saint of our times, St. John. But today, if people are "clear," they are still accused of being excessively strict and phanatical, just like Met. Philaret. Today they are said to be "sectarian," which is seen as the opposite of ecumenistic. But would we say the same thing of Met. Philaret?

[/quote]

Always interesting when two great saints disagree isn't it

Savva

[Justin Kissel]

Savva,

Indeed it is! One of the positive benefits, I think, is to remind rash young men like myself to take things slowly, and not to think that he can figure everything out. After all, if Saint John and Met. Philaret disagreed (at least to some extent), why would I be able to think I could understand better?

[Justin Kissel]

I've hesitated quoting the last part because I know it hits much closer to home for many here. I certainly won't comment on it, but I do think it should be quoted. Met. Philaret says that he speaks only for himself, and I do not even say that I totally agree with him (please no one start asking me if I am calling the OCA schismatic, I am not saying that; I am merely putting a quote up). The reason I am going to post this, though, is because what is said by him is so rarely heard today from within ROCOR that I thought it would be spiritually profitable (though not very easy) to hear it. The spiritual profit, of course, is not edification, but having a more complete picture of things as they were, as they are, and as they will be. What I mean is, we can’t construct our understanding of history while ignoring certain quotes or events, so we should listen to all of them, whether we agree with them or not.

...I consider (I speak, of course, only for myself) that the schismatics American and Parisian do not have grace, for otherwise one would have to admit the absurd: the existence of several true Churches, which do not recognize each other, nor have any spiritual communion among themselves. This is already manifestly absurd because the Divine Founder of the Church said: "I will build My Church", and not "My Churches". I was led to this conviction both by the words of the ancient Holy Fathers (cited by me above) and by the words of Abba Anthony concerning the apparent performance of the Mysteries among those who have broken away from the true Church To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics' "manipulations", that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the "Parisians" nor from the American False-Autocephalites, lest in place of the Holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine.

But I have neglected still to emphasize that, the situation being such, it must considered a most grievous thing that our "Zarubezshniki" also frequent the temples of the schismatics to "confess" and "commune" there. Of what are they communing? If the Holy Mysteries, then that means that we do not have the Holy Mysteries, as Saint John Chrysostom has elucidated so clearly. But if we do have the Holy Mysteries, then they do not, and these poor people go there in vain. "Apparent" Mysteries, according to the definition of Abba Anthony that is what the ministers of the schism offer to these credulous people.
I quite understand what turmoil it would bring into the lives of those Russian people who believe in the exarchate and the false autocephaly, if that which I have written here were to be published. But will it really be better to remain silent concerning all this and take comfort in the "peace and quiet", as Vladyka Anthony [of Geneva] would have us do? Why, people are on a spiritually false path! This is terrifying! And will not the awesome judgment of God fall upon our heads, if we do not enlighten our erring brothers?

Some might raise an objection and say to me: Did not the Third Pan-Diaspora Sobor address both one and the other, the Parisians and the Americans, with a call for peace and unity? Yes, it did address them, but it addressed them not at all as was needed, and for that very cause this appeal produced no results, or rather, it produced a negative result. I had been certain that such would be the result. For we should have told them: you have gone astray, you have fallen away from the Church: strive to return to Her! But the appeal as published speaks to them as though they were within the Church just as we are, with equal rights and position. Whereas what should have been told them then and there was: you are not some sort of "different jurisdictions"; you are simply schismatics, and have no rights whatsoever... Come to your senses and return in repentance!

Most likely such an appeal would have provoked only an outburst of rage from the leaders of the schism (God grant that I am mistaken; but then, we know their attitude). But among their "flock", many, very many may have pondered it over and come to understand that matters do not at all stand well with them just as the late Sandrik Filatev and many others who have broken with the schism came to understand after hearing the serious and convincing explanations of Fr. Gerasim'.

The question might be posed to me: why I didn't mention at the Sobor that I felt the appeal to be inappropriate. I would reply: because I saw the attitude at the Sobor and I feared an explosion and a possible catastrophe. For I had been forewarned that the enemies of the Church wished to arrange such an explosion, in order to "blow up" the Sobor from within. Therefore I was compelled to avoid issues which might have provoked heated exchanges.
I wish to return to the issue of heresy and schism. His Beatitude, Metropolitan Anthony asks: is it permissible to be stern with heretics, who perhaps sincerely believe in the righteousness of their cause? One must never idealize heretics, he replies, since the basis for their departure is not virtue, but the passions and sins of pride, obstinacy, and malice. Sternness towards heretics, says Vladyka, is beneficial not only for the sake of protecting people from their influence, but also for the heretics themselves.

We have seen that the Holy Fathers equate obstinate schismatics with heretics. Consequently, is it proper to coddle them as, unfortunately, occurs among us? And all this for the sake of an evil and false "peace". . .

If the Lord permits me to live until the next Bishops' Sobor [1983, When the Anathema Against Ecumenism was solemnly proclaimed] at it I shall pose this question "point blank".

[Savva24]

Savva,

Indeed it is! One of the positive benefits, I think, is to remind rash young men like myself to take things slowly, and not to think that he can figure everything out. After all, if Saint John and Met. Philaret disagreed (at least to some extent), why would I be able to think I could understand better?

Indeed Justin,

And I think that is all the reason more not to trust so much in ourselves but to trust and rely more on our bishops and their councils.

I hope you have a blessed Pashca and that your concerns and searching will be resolved.

In Christ,

Nicholas (savva)