A Open Letter to the Nishops of ROCOR (L) from an OCA layman

[gggxgggx]

An Open letter to the Bishops of the ROCOR (L) from a layperson of the OCA

Vladyka's Bless,

I am a young man who was born into and raised in the OCA. Due to my inattention and indifference to Church matters during the years of my youth, I never sought or learned the truth concerning the jurisdictional divisions within the Russian Church. Recently, over the past couple of years I sought and recieved this knowledge. For a long while I had been fed up with the various lies, compromises and betrayals that I saw coming from the official representatives of the different Local Orthodox Churches, including the OCA. As human beings I think that naturally we are repulsed by falsehood and love truth. So since I was encountering falsehood almost everywhere I looked in the Orthodox world, I began to search for those who spoke the truth, people who could spiritually enlighten me and give my heart what it thirsted for-the truth.

I found what I was looking for when I encountered the writings of people such as Fr. Seraphim Rose, Vladyka Averky, Metropolitan Philaret, Professor Andreev and the Russian New Martyrs. I also learned alot from reading the Church fathers, as well as from a number of recent holy people who were not part of the Russian Orthodox Church-although they certainly were Orthodox.

One of the things that struck me and has caused me lots of pain and confusion is the fact that according to the Church teachings-schism is Graceless. Having been brought up in the OCA and having learned the truth about how the OCA twice seperated itself from the ROCOR and received an uncanonical autocephaly from the Mp; I began to question why I should belong to a jurisdiction which is in schism. What would be my responsibility before God if I remained in a schismatic Church organization? How would this affect my relationship with God? Would this hinder me from recieving Divine Grace? Questions like these began to torment me.

So I have made up my mind to leave and to go to a jurisdiction where my conscience would be at rest. But the question then became "where?".

I could not go to the MP, since according to the traditional position of the ROCOR and according to the testimony of numerous New Martrys it is a uncanonical creation of Stahlin, is schismatic in its origins, is a subtle continuation of the Living church, and there is reason to question whether or not Grace is present in its Mysteries. Of course some of you disagree, but their is reason to have serious doubts about the MP and therefore about the so-called autocephaly of the OCA.

So, out of the Russian jurisdictions, the only choice left was the ROCOR. This was my desire. The ROCOR has always spoken the truth concerning the situation in the Russian Church, she has condemned the ecumenical heresy, she has stood by the confessors and martrys, she has been one with the Russian Catacomb Church etc. etc. Her representaives have spoken the truth-and I love this and this what I had been searching for. But when I look at what is now happening within the ROCOR, the split and confusing situation with Metropolitan Vitaly-about which it is impossible for me to know the truth due to their being so many conflicting stories, about the MP suddenly becoming canonical and not schismatic, about the voices of some bishops against ROCOR's Old Calendarist bretheren, about ROCOR potentially being about to unite not only with Moscow but with all of World Orthodoxy (which may lead to falling under your own anathema); considering all this I have to ask "why should I join ROCOR"? When the truth they have always stood for is departing from them? Should I join ROCOR so I can then be potentially forced to leave it, if it joins with Moscow?

Of course, not everyone will go along with a compromised union with the MP. I thank those bishops who stand up for the truth and I hope that someday I maybe able to enter your flock, providing you withstand the temptation to join the Patriarchate.

So I have no options for the time being. I could leave for a non Russian jurisdiction, but then I would have to face the temptations of modernism, ecumenism and falsehood-even more than I have to in the OCA. That would not give rest to my soul. I'd be happy to join with the "Synod in Resistance" but they have no parishes around here. I could not join any of the Churches (Matthewites, ROCIE, etc.) which claim World Orthodoxy to be Graceless-since I view this as a false teaching which potentially seperates one from the Church. So I am lost, confused and very sad.

Who's to blame for this situation in Orthodoxy? The innovators, the blaspheming ecumenists, the Sergianist schismatics etc. etc. All of these have caused division, heresy and temptations to appear in the Orthodox Church. Along with some others, the ROCOR has been a major force against all this and their still are many who do take a stand against all this within ROCOR. But what about those who do not take a stand for truth and who seek compromise and twist and distort truth and history to fit their agendas? Are they perhaps also responsible for the confusion in the Orthodox world and in my soul? Hasn't their agenda already caused enough schisms within the ROCOR, with more to follow? Think about the pain and distress in the souls of your flocks and clergy due to this move towards Moscow? Think about how many people there may be, who like me are seeking the truth and the true Russian Church and then realize they cannot enter it and are forced to remain in a schismatic Church organization? Think about how people have been scandalized by this new direction and have left the ROCOR for what could potentially be called Orthodox sects-will you have to answer to God for scandalizing them and leading them in their weakness to make such moves? Think about IF Metropolitan Philaret, Vladyka Averky, the Russian New Martrys and others were right about the MP-then you will be leading your flock potentially out of the Church and into a state of Gracelessness? I know none of you wants to be responsible for this...

Therefore I beg of all of you to please take a stand for truth, for Orthodoxy and for you flocks. Even if you consider me spiritually weak and my understanding infirm about these matters (although I hold the traditional opinion of your Church and of many Saints), then please consider that St. Paul commands the strong not to scandalize the weak-even if the actions that cause the scandel are not sinful. Hasn't enough scandel, division and confusion been caused by this move towards Moscow? Why not end it all? It is in your power to end it or continue it. Please do what is right and please stop hurting us "little ones".

Asking you blessings, prayers, and forgiveness (if I have been sinfully bold in this letter),

A layman of the OCA

[Priest Siluan]

I think that the Vision of this OCA layman is very myopic with regard to Mathewites, ROCiE etc and "all those jurisdictions that they tell that World Orhodoxy don't have the Grace", I do not heard any such "extremist" bishops (Synodal)' declaration of ROCiE (or ROAC, GOC of Arz. Chrysostomos II, etc) in this respect. It is more, posture of these Churches is the traditional posture of ROCOR, which ROCOR-L has changed. The posture is: Worl orthodox moves away of limits of Orthodoxy (and limits of the Church, this is completely evident) and then the Tradicionalist (True) Churches broke communion and prayers with them, but there is not a determination with regard to the Grace.

[gggxgggx]

Thanks for the reply Father...as regarding the Churches which I listed which according to my understanding declare World Orthodoxy to be Graceless I'd like to state the following:
I do not know about the GOC, or others you had listed...I only mentioned in my letter the ROCIE and the Mathewites...
Regarding the ROCIE the following may be found on their official website and was accepted by the Synod of their Church:

"Metropolitan Cyrpian and his Synod, while recognizing ecumenist world Orthodoxy to be heretical, nevertheless, considers it to be a part of the Church of Christ, thus contradicting the teaching and tradition of the Church, which clearly bears witness in Conciliar decrees and the writings of the Holy Fathers to the effect that heretics are fallen away from the Church."

To me this saying they believe that "ecumenist world Orthodoxy" is not a part of the Church and therefore Graceless...

Regarding the Mathewites, as far as I understand it the cause of division between them and the Florentines was precisely because the Florentines stated that the new calendar Churches had valid mysteries while the Mathewites stated they do not have valid mysteries...

Therefore to me both of these Churches believe the Churches of World Orthodoxy to be Graceless...if I am missing something, please let me know?

[Priest Siluan]

I don't have objection, it is well; it is exact that all those that are outside of the Church don't have the Grace and that the eclessiology of Kiprianos is completely heretical. But don't I understand your point in Why should one believe that the Churches of Jerusalem or Serbia have the Grace, if they keep communion with the Ecumenist?... The postulate of ROCiE would not be so bad. On the other hand the Holy Canons punishes with the same rigor to who is a schismatic or heretic than that which continuous maintaining communion with the previous one, That is to say the ecumenists and modernists are same thing that those that maintain communion with them.

[gggxgggx]

There are 2 ways to fight against heresy in the Church...one way is to break communion with those who are in heresy...this is what St. Maximos the Confessor did and this is allowed by the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council...
The other way is to not break Communion and to fight from within...this is what the entire Orthodox Church did when the Church of Rome accepted the heresy of the filioque...they did not break Communion for many years and when they did it was only because they were provoked to do so by the so called anathema of the pope against the Orthodox Church...the Church at this time maintained Communion with bishops who held the heresy of the filioque and they maintained this communion for hundreds of years...in other words they thought the Church of Rome had Grace even though it had accepted the filioque heresy...but after the anathema and split in 1054 they viewed the Roman Church as Graceless...

St. Justin Popavich of the Serbian Orthodox Church also did not break Communion with his entire Church even though it was heavily into ecumenism...

And Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed memory wrote letters to the different Orthodox Bishops and addressed them as Orthodox bishops...and even asked for their prayers...would he have done this if he viewed them as outside of the Church?

Vladyka Averky of Jordanville at times would serve with a priest from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese...this priest was not an ecumenist, but if Bishop Averky viewed him as outside the Church he would not have served with him...

Fr. Seraphim Rose would give Communion to new calendarists from world Orthodox jurisdictions...

When the Fathers of the Church speak about heretics being Graceless and outside of the Church...they speak about anathamatized heretics who are totally out of the Church...and they speak about those in the Church organization who hold heretical beliefs as being outside of the Church because by their heresy they break Communion with the Head of the Mystical Church-Christ...but until they are anathamatized they still are in the Church organization and if clergy of bishops they still perform valid Mysteries...

That is why I view the World Orthodox as still possesing God's Grace...

[gggxgggx]

Here is what some holy people had to say about declaring World Orthodoxy Graceless:

1) Fr. Seraphim Rose:

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...

The agony of suffering Orthodoxy in our days cannot always be by a change of jurisdictions. Even in the free West the jurisdictional situation is immensely complicated. Some of those who see things in terms of "either/or" think that all new calendarist Greeks, for example, should simply "join the old calendarists." But many new calendarist Greeks have found the situation of the old calendarists in Greece—with their innumerable "jurisdictions" and sometimes extreme and ignorant views—to be exactly the same situation that Fr. Dimitry finds in the Catacomb Church in Russia, and they have rejected this "logical conclusion" ("logical" to outsiders who don’t have to face the actual choices involved) in order to join the Synod of the Russian Church Outside of Russia. But this also is an irregular and abnormal solution which produces its own conflicts and problems, and no one has a right to demand of anyone else that they "join the Synod" as the answer to the ever more open apostasy of the new calendarist Greek bishops. If someone can do this, and find his place in this jurisdiction without falling into the pitfall of criticizing his bishops and spreading the atmosphere of suspicion that prevails among Greek old calendarists, and thus coming into conflict with the clergy and believers of the Synod, well and good; but no one can demand this of anyone.

The situation of Fr. Dimitry in many respects is identical with that of those new calendarist Greek priests who are aware of the false path of their own bishops but are unable to "join the old calendarists" because of the confusion and extremism to be found in their ranks (not, of course, among all old calendarists, but in enough of them to make the situation very confusing and difficult).

2) Fr. Philotheus Zervakos:

"I was sick in those days fearing lest the fanatic (he does not mean all the Old Calendarists but those with extreme views) Old Calendarists had decieved you into accepting their blasphemous and impious belief that the Mysteries of the New Calendarists are invalid because they do not follow the Old Calendar."
"Certain Old Calendarist zealots think that the Mysteries are invalid without the Old Calendar...there is no greater heresy than this"

3)Met. Philaret:

In a letter to Patriarch and ecumenist Athenogoras (1965):

"We sincerely ask Your Holiness to put an end to the confusion, because the way you have chosen to follow, even if it would bring you to a union with the Roman Catholics, would provoke a schism in the Orthodox world. Surely even many of your spiritual children will prefer faithfulness to Orthodoxy instead of the idea of a compromising union with the heterodox without their full harmony with us in the truth.

Asking for your prayers, I am your Holiness' humble servant,

• Metropolitan PHILARET
  President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
  Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

4) Met. Anthony Krahpivisky (first ever ROCOR Metropolitan) in 1926:

Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) called the calendar innovation “this senseless and pointless concession to Masonry and Papism”....and he wrote also "You know the 13th, 14th and 15th canons of the First-and-Second Council, which speaks about separating oneself from a Bishop or Patriarch after his conciliar condemnation. And then there is the canon (the 15th), which says that that clergyman is worthy, not of condemnation, but of praise, who breaks with links with him [the heretic] for the sake of a heresy condemned by the holy councils or fathers…, and besides ‘when he (that is, the first-hierarch) preaches heresy publicly and teaches it openly in the Church’. But this, glory to God, neither P[atriarch] Basil [III of Constantinople] nor [Archbishop] Chrysostom [of Athens] have done yet. On the contrary, they insist on keeping the former Paschalion, for only it, and not the Julian calendar itself was covered by the curse of the councils. True, P[atriarch] Jeremiah in the 15th [correct: 16th] century and his successor in the 18th anathematised the calendar itself, but this curse: 1) touches only his contemporaries and 2) does not extend to those who are frightened to break communion with him, to which are subjected only those who transgress the canonical Paschalion. Moreover (this needs to be noted in any case), the main idea behind the day of Pascha is that it should be celebrated by all the Christians (that is, the Orthodox) on one and the same day throughout the inhabited world. True, I myself and my brothers do not at all sympathise with the new calendar and modernism, but we beseech the Athonite fathers not to be hasty in composing letters (Romans 14). – Do not grieve about our readiness to go to the C[onstantinople] Council. Of course, there will be no council, but if there is, and if we go, as St. Flavian went to the robber cou[ncil], then, of course, we will keep the faith and deliver the apostates to anathema. But as long as the last word has not been spoken, as long as the whole Church has not repeated the curses of Patriarch Jeremiah at an ecumenical council, we must retain communion, so that we ourselves should not be deprived of salvation, and, in aiming at a gnat, swallow a camel…”

5) Met Vitaly in 1984 after the anathema against ecumenism was issued stated:

By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale. The place of the Russian Church Abroad is now plain in the conscience of all the Orthodox. The Lord has laid a great cross upon us, but it is, however, no longer possible to remain silent, for continued silence would be like a betrayal of the Truth, from which may the Lord deliver us all!

From all this I hope that you understand my position that World Orthodoxy is still a part of the Church...

[Priest Siluan]

Well, the limits of the Church are not exact, but the Grace is not outside of limit of the Church. I lowly think that a heretics are heretic, he is anatematized or not. And in these times of apostasy it is very difficult to be able to gather a council of genuine orthodox to anatematize to heretics, for what I believe that to break up communion with them is a They have already been noticed enough times, by example for Holy Metropolitan Philaret, Also they only didn't pay attention to the compassionate call, but rather they increased their heresy and their state is much worse today. It can no longer treat them how before, the things have changed enough... And if their mysteries have or non grace, God will know, at least I should take care of not accepting them, because they continue in iniquity and God hates to the Iniquitous ones, for that reason it is convenient not to be contaminated with its iniquity and lack of Orthodoxy (many of them have left many of the compassionate ones you practice orthodox and they are single name orthodox).