A PROPOSAL TO THE MAY, 2006 SOBOR OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD
Dear Delegates to the Sobor, and all those who await its outcome in the fear
of God and with sincere hopes for the true unity - the unity in the truth -
of the Russian Church!
"Let us stand well, let us stand with fear," chants the deacon at the
beginning of the sacred Anaphora. You, too, are called to stand well and with
fear
at the forthcoming Sobor of the Russian Church Abroad. And we who watch from
the sideleines, we too stand and pray; for the Church of Christ is one Body,
and we cannot and must not remain indifferent to what is happening in any
part of the Body.
We wish to make a constructive proposal to you, a proposal that may, we
believe, help to bring a measure of unity to the faithful remnant of the
Russian
Church Abroad rather than the further disintegration that, as many fear,
will be the result of the forthcoming Sobor. For from the accounts we have
received, its leaders are proposing to bring the Russian Church Abroad into
union
with Patriarch Alexis of Moscow, the Eastern Pope, who, like the Western
Pope, lies under many curses and anathemas. But we fervently hope that this
council will not seal a false unia in the manner of the false unias of Florence
in
1439 and Brest in 1596.
The basis of our hope is the fact that a holy remnant of dissenters opposed
to union with Moscow appears to be gathering strength. Two or three bishops
are rumoured to be against the false unia. Some areas - Russia, South America
- appear to be solidly against it; and significant numbers in other areas -
Eastern America, Australia - are also against. And dissenters have made their
voices heard even in Jerusalem, in Western Europe and in Western America...
The question is: what will this holy remnant do? Exchange recrimination with
the uniates, and then scatter off into various jurisdictions of the True
Orthodox Church? Or form yet another jurisdiction of the Russian Church having
no
communion with the others?
We propose another alternative. We are convinced that the gathering of such a
large number of Russian Christians in one place presents the opportunity of
doing something more bolder, more constructive and more pleasing to God - the
opportunity to call on all past and present members of the Russian Church
Abroad, to whichever jurisdiction they may belong, who are opposed to the unia
with Moscow, to reunite in One Church on the basis of Holy Orthodoxy.
The rest of this letter is a proposal addressed to you and all lovers of the
Russian Church Abroad on how to grasp this opportunity.
A Programme for an Anti-Uniate Sobor
- Repentance. The Prophet-King David says: "Turn away from evil, and do
good" (Psalm 33.14). It is impossible to do a truly good work until one has
thoroughly cleansed onself from evil. To that end, refusal to join the
Sovietised Moscow Patriarchate is a necessary step, but only a first step. We -
and
here we include ourselves, the signatories of this Proposal, as well as the
delegates to the Sobor, and all those who have been members of the Russian
Church Abroad - must repent that by our sins, individual and collective, we
have
allowed the evil one to creep into our Church to such an extent that now,
after many completed schisms, it stands on the threshold of yet another schism
and almost complete self-destruction. St. John Maximovich and Archbishop Averky
of Jordanville used to say that every Russian Christian was responsible to a
greater or lesser extent for the betrayal of the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas that
started the whole catastrophic train of events that has brought us to this
pass. All the more should we, who have been closely involved in the destinies
of
the Russian Church Abroad for the last generation and more, repent that we
have allowed it to fall so far.
But repentance needs to be specific and unsparing if it is to be effective
and pleasing in God's eyes. So we would limit our proposal at this stage to
the event that we think we can all agree on as having been the decisive and
disastrous turning-point in the recent history of the ROCOR: the false council
of 2000, "the second October revolution". This council, we believe, must be
formally and in a conciliar manner declared to be false, its decisions must be
officially repealed, and sincere repentance must be offered not only that it
took place, but that we all, whether or not we actually took part in it, by
our criminal actions and/or inaction made it possible for it to take place.
The Prophet Isaiah said: "How is the faithful city become a harlot!" But the
Lord did not abandon the harlot: "Come now, and let us reason together,
saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow;
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and
obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land" (1.21, 18). Let us hope that by
our sincere repentance before the Lord our sins can be washed as white as
snow, and we can again eat of the good of the land, that land of which the
Prophet-King says: "Thy good Spirit shall lead me in the land of uprightness"
(Psalm 50.12).
- A Confession of Faith. Having laid a good foundation in repentance, we
can go forward to a confession of faith. In our opinion, this should not be too
ambitious; that is, it should not attempt to resolve all the questions that
divide Russian Christians, but only those that relate to the historic
profession of the Russian Church Abroad in relation to Sergianism and
Ecumenistm, to
the Sovietised Moscow Patriarchate and so-called "World Orthodoxy" - that
is, those Local Churches that take part in the ecumenical movement and the
World Council of Churches.
In our opinion, this end is best attained, following the example of the
Ecumenical Council and other God-inspired Councils, in two ways: (a) by quoting
and reaffirming a selected number of documents expressing the faith of the
Russian Church Abroad, and (b) by anathematising certain specific teachings and
individuals. Some may object to anathematisations, as being too aggressive
and confrontational. However, we believe that the practice of the great Church
Councils of antiquity and also of more recent times (for example, the
Russian Church Council of 1918, which anathematised the Bolshevisk, ecent times
(for example, the Russian Church Council of 1918, which anathematised the
Bolsheviks, Patriarch Tikhon’s 1923 anathematisation of the renovationists,
the
anathematisation of the sergianists by the Catacomb Councils, as well as the
anathematisation of the ecumenists by the 1983 Council of the ROCOR) should be
followed in order to avoid ambiguities and attempts to reinterpret or distort
the Sobor's confession of faith. Moreover, we believe - again, in accordance
with the practice of the Ecumenical Councils - that specific individuals, the
leaders of the heresies of Sergianism and Ecumenism, should be anathematised
by name. Then there will be no doubt about where the Sobor stands in
relation to these individuals.
With regard to (a), we believe that only two documents need to be singled
out for specifice commendation and reaffirmation:
(1) Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's never-repealed and therefore still
authoritative encyclical of July 28 / August 10, 1928 expressing "the
completely definitive declaration of our Synod of Bishops that the Moscow Synod
has
deprived itself of all authority, since it has entered into agreement with the
atheists", calling it an illegally formed organization of apostates from the
faith like the ancient libellatici, that is, Christians who, although they
refused to blaspheme openly against Christ and offer sacrifices to the idols,
nevertheless still received from the priests of the idols false documents
verifying that they were in complete accord with the adherents of pagan
religion..."
(2) The ROCOR's never-repealed and therefore still authoritative anathema
against Ecumenism of July 28 / August 10, 1983.
With regard to (b), in confirmation of previous anathematisations by the
True Orthodox Church of Russia, the following false patriarchs should be
anathematised: Sergius, Alexis I, Pimen and Alexis II of Moscow, and all the
contemporary patriarchs of World Orthodoxy who take part in the World Council
of
Churches.
- Other True Orthodox Jurisdictions. In the last ten years, the single
organism of the Russian Church Abroad has divided into four major groups, each
having its own episcopate: ROCOR (L) under Metropolitan Laurus, ROCOR (V) under
Metropolitan Vitaly, ROAC under Metropolitan Valentine ("Suzdal") and RTOC
under Metropolitan Tikhon (the "Lazarites"). Each of these groups insists,
with greater or lesser plausibility, that it is "the best", if not "the only"
True Russian Church, while the others are, to a greater or lesser degree,
"false", "schismatical" or at any rate "uncanonical". The result: canonical
chaos,
the loss of souls, and the disintegration of the common front against the
one undoubtedly false jurisdiction - the Moscow Patriarchate.
At San Francisco yet another, fifth jurisdiction may well arise...
But it does not have to happen that way. Bishop Dionysius (Alferov) of
Novgorod has called for the formation of a common front among the True Orthodox
Russians against the Moscow Patriarchate. We wish to join our voices to this
call, and to suggest a concrete way in which a beginning can be made to the
process of the gathering together of the scattered fragments of the Russian
Church Abroad. We suggest that the anti-uniates meeting in San Francisco,
instead
of forming a fifth jurisdiction, appeal to representatives of the other four
to join them in their Sobor. These representatives will not be asked to
concelebrate with the anti-uniates, nor with each other. They will not be
required
to drop their objections to this or that supposedly heretical, uncanonical
or immoral person. The invitation will be to talk, no more. How things will
develop from there we dare not speculate. But we can hope…
A word should be said about other non-Russian jurisdictions in True
Orthodoxy. Several of these have been, at one time or another, in communion
with the
ROCOR; some have even received their hierarchical orders from her. To exclude
them completely from the picture would therefore by uncanonical and contrary
to the commandments of Christ, insofar as "in Christ there is neither Greek
nor Jew". And there can be no doubt that the final triumph of truth over
heresy cannot be a purely Russian thing, even in a single country. In every
liturgy the Church prays for her members of all nationalities throughout the
world, and the triumph of the Church in any part of the world is the triumph
of
the whole Church throughout the world.
At the same time, there is no doubt that the union of True Orthodox
Russians with True Orthodox Greeks or Romanians or Serbs or Bulgarians will be
much
easier to achieve once the Russians have obtained a certain degree of unity
among themselves. Apart from any other consideration, the non-Russians have
great difficulty in knowing which faction of the Russians to attempt union with
as long as they are all fighting each other. So we suggest that unity with
the non-Russian jurisdictions should be set aside for the moment - but only
for the moment...
- The Canonisation of Metropolitan Philaret. If there is one thing that, we
believe, all four of the existing jurisdictions, together with the
anti-uniates of San Francisco, can agree on and rejoice in, it is the holiness
of
Metropolitan Philaret of New York. This is witnessed to by the incorruption of
his relics, several miracles and the purity of his confession against
Sergianism and Ecumenism. There may be other candidates for canonisation; but
Metropolitan Philaret is likely to be the least controversial and the most
directly
relevant to the nature of the struggle ahead of us.
Finally, we should point out that this proposal has been formulated and
signed in the first place by laymen only, not out of any anti-clerical bias,
but
out of a realisation that it is often difficult for clergy, for reasons of
jurisdictional loyalty and obedience to hierarchs, to sign an appeal or
proposal that transcends jurisdictional boundaries. Nevertheless, we hope and
pray
that the clergy will read our proposal and ponder its contents. For we are
acutely aware that while the laity may propose, it is the clergy who have the
power to bring or not bring our proposals to fruition – all under the
Providence of God, Who orders all things for our good. Therefore it is in all
humility and not as some kind of rebels or innovators that we have written the
above. For we believe firmly the word of the apostle: "Remember them which have
the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith
follow, considering the end of their conversation: Jesus Christ the same
yesterday,
today and forever" (Hebrews 13.7-8).
London.
December 25, 2005 (old calendar).
Prince Dmitri Golitsyn
Vladimir Moss
Igor Sobolev
(organizing committee)
plus an indefinite number of signatures.
London.
December 25, 2005 (O.S.).
The Nativity of our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Prince Dmitri Golitsyn
Vladimir Moss
Igor Sobolev
(organizational committee)
plus an indefinite number of signatures.
