A New Appeal from 246 Loyal Church Abroad Members of South America to the ROCOR(L) Hierarchy
His Beatitude, the Most Reverend Laurus
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Their Eminences, Archbishops and Bishops of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Your Eminence, the Most Reverend Vladiko Metropolitan!
Your Graces, the Most Reverend Vladikas!
Masters Bless!
Having read the Resolution of the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor and the Epistle of the Hierarchical Sobor, we appeal to you, our Arch-pastors, with a request and cry from our souls that you not ignore the bewildering questions which arise upon reading these documents: the unusual style for a Hierarchical Epistle, lack of clarity in formulation and occasional casuistry evoke suspicion that this document was not compiled by you, but on your behalf.
1.Neither “unanimous desire” nor “general consent” had any connection to “step-by-step development of canonical and eucharistic communion”.
2.“The Commissions on Dialogue…have been given specific tasks”… but which tasks it is not indicated.
3.“..to resolve remaining questions.” But these remaining issues in our view are the most important: sergianism and ecumenism, which to date remain unresolved.
4.It speaks of the need for the future to “confirm” the status of the Russian Church abroad as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church. In the “Statute” of the Church Abroad it states: “Temporarily self-governing until the abolition of the godless regime”. Perhaps it is correct to consider that the godless regime has not been abolished? In this case “self-governance” continues, and if there is to be the desired true church unity, then self-governance is superfluous.
No newly granted self-governing status will have that strong foundation upon which the Church Abroad stands currently, basing itself upon the Ukaz of the last lawful Patriarch of the Russian Church.
5.The draft “Act of Canonical Communion” was read at the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor, but was not discussed and was not put to a vote. Then who “adopted and approved it in principal”? And how can it be relegated to the Dialogue Commissions for “final editing” and then sent to the “Synod of Bishops for ratification”? A document of such importance can only be adopted and ratified by the fullness of a Conciliar decision and after removing the main obstacles of unification: SERGIANISM and ECUMENISM, with which the MP has become so tightly bound, and which to date have not lost their pertinence. In Sergianism, not only is the “Declaration” itself frightening, which constitutes betrayal of the Church of Christ and worship of the satanic regime, but also its consequences: the loss of the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, i.e. spiritual blindness which produces compromise.
The spirit of Sergianism penetrated the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor through its organizers:
1.Too much time was allotted to speeches from unification proponents, to the detriment of the ability of delegates to express their opinions, yet the main purpose of a sobor is to arrive at a “unanimous conciliar voice” from individual thoughts and opinions.
2.Conducting voting through a show of hands instead of by secret ballot according to the tradition of previous Sobors, in fact is a measure of obvious coersion of free conscience following the example of voting at political elections in the former Soviet Union.
How could such a manner of voting be “free” for clergy, if already several priests were placed under suspension (in Germany), or were deprived of their parishes (in the USA) for speaking out against unification?
Not finding within itself the spiritual strength to realized its false legacy of Sergianism within its structure and, thereby repenting, freeing itself of its yoke and return to the truths of the Gospels, the MP prefers to draw the Church Abroad as well onto this slippery path of compromise, so as to no longer hear its denunciatory voice, and instead of repentance the “tenets of social concepts” are produced.
Must the church turn to sources which are foreign to its spirit and accept as guiding principles “tenets” which were written not by Orthodox, not for Orthodox, and not for Russians (for the Russian people are not even mentioned in them), and to turn these “tenets” into the altar book instead of the Holy Gospel, which contains clear answers for every aspect of life, private and public; truths which lie at the basis of Russian statehood. Or has the Gospel become outdated?
It is likely that our Hierarchs did not have sufficient time to become acquainted with this terrible document!
Ecumenism is the heresy which refutes the very teaching of the Church of Christ, the true purpose of which is apostolic globalization, clearly the anti-Christ movement which leads to the establishment of the one kingdom of the anti-Christ in the world!
It is completely incomprehensible how a hierarch of the known to be ecumenical Serbian Church was invited to the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor.
The Sobor Resolution asks the MP to leave the WCC; but while the Sobor was underway, the Patriarch was establishing ties with the Pope of Rome, not with the purpose of witnessing the truths of Orthodoxy, but to serve the political goals of the state, in whose hands it is an obedient tool. The pro-ecumenical activities of the MP are progressively expanding: in the Assembly which was held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a delegation of 21 members participated.
At the world conference in Moscow, the Patriarch states that the MP is “foreign to isolationism” and stands for continued cooperation with international Christian organizations. Therefore it has no intention of withdrawing from the WCC. In this case there can be no unification!
Accusations of hostility toward the Russian people, in “resisting”, in absence of love toward our brethren in the homeland have no basis. The Church Abroad always prayed for “The Orthodox Episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church” and “for the suffering Orthodox Russian people”. The words of the Holy Scriptures about the mote in one’s brother’s eye and carrying one another’s burdens refer to the personal behavior among people in daily life; but for us there is no ill-will in common interaction with Russian people in the homeland. Yet the reproaches from our hierarchs and the call to cease a hostility which does not exist, may create the impression of a real presence of hostility toward the Russian people on the part of brethren abroad!
The Hierarchical Sobor “basing our decision upon the support of the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor” and “expressing its unanimous desire”, is undertaking further steps toward unification. But the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor decided that the time for unification had not yet come. It was namely this decision, completely undesired and unexpected for the unification proponents and contrary to their aspirations, is clear evidence of the influence of the Holy Spirit on the Sobor participants, Who revealed to them the Will of God through the prayers of St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco.
Unification may only occur “in the appropriate time”, i.e. only after the removal of obstacles, but not sooner!
Likewise, it is not acceptable in the form of subjugation, giving the Patriarchate the right to confirm (or not) our hierarchs, (according to the practice when the KGB conducted checks on candidates for ordination to the priesthood and hierarchy), since this threatens the Church Abroad with complete annihilation, which is the aim of the MP and has already been reported by Moscow Radio.
Premature concelebration by some of our hierarchs with MP hierarchs and the out-of-control activity of Archbishop Mark, disdainfully violating the canonical rules of the Orthodox Church, only strengthen our resistance to unification.
We earnestly ask all of you, Your Eminences, without “adhering to the schedule”, to circumspectly and thoroughly review all the points and terms adopted by the Dialogue Commission (whose members, unfortunately, unfairly include exclusively “pro-uniates”), in order that the appropriate time for unification can be called GOD-PLEASING. If the Episcopal and clerical order of the Church Abroad enters into canonical communion with the MP prior to the latter’s withdrawal from the WCC and its irrevocable refusal of ecumenism, it automatically falls under its own anathema, drawing in the entire Church Abroad as well.
Without removing the two main obstacles, the faithful will not accept canonical, much less eucharistic communion, just as the Russian church did not accept the Union of Florence, even though it had been signed by its representatives.
If we do not receive a response to this appeal as well, we will be forced to consider ourselves to have been abandoned by our hierarchs.
July 2006
Liubov Andreeva
Alexandra Bordokova
Dr. Irina Verbitskaya
Elena Liventsova
Dr. Gali Sokalskaya
Klavdia Florenskaya
Alexander Shindler
Followed by 240 signatures of laity from the South American Diocese of ROCOR
mrocorsa@yahoo.com.ar
Members Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in South America
Publishes on the “Western European Herald” website
If anyone does not remember the previous Appeal to all the ROCOR(L) hierarchs, signed by 183 loyal Church Abroad Members from South America, then we advise that that marvelous analysis of what is happening should be re-read, since those actions which are impermissible must not be ignored. Since that Appeal, 10 months have lapsed, and the infamous “Pan-Abroad Sobor” occurred without any attention or commiseration with the pain of the flock which the “good hierarchical pastors” did not deem necessary to express even to the extent that it became apparent, as is stated in the article, that the spirit of sergianism penetrated the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor through its organizers. Furthermore, the Sobor not only proceeded completely ignoring all the bewilderment, requests and pleas which had been voiced prior to it by the entire Abroad membership, but the Synod members assert with shameless hypocrisy that they are undertaking further steps toward unification, supposedly fulfilling the will of the flock! Emboldened with such a victory, such as it could not have envisioned in its sweetest dreams, the MP has long forsaken any thoughts of any sort of repentance, but even has begun to recruit the Abroad bishops who gave in without a battle into the slippery path of compromise, not distinguishing truth from falsehood, in a word, a spiritual blindness born of sergianism in order that that the exposing voice of truth from the Church Abroad would never be heard again. The South American flock is not the only one in bewilderment – why must be submit to a foreign yoke? Who needs a confirmation of the self-governance status of ROCOR, as if the decree of St. Patriarch Tikhon is insufficient? Does not the scriptural warning apply to us: “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old…and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” (John 21:18). Is this not clear upon entering into administrative-canonical “communion-subordination” with the MP, it won’t be long before another shall gird us and lead us where we do not wish to go. Can some still be hoping that the Synod will reply? However, one cannot reproach the loyal South Americans, that to the end in sonship they have attempted every means to avoid separation with the Synod.
From the “Karlovtchanin” Editorial
http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=46013&cf
