As a concerned layman in the ROCOR, I took some time this week to carefully review the recent, thoughtful article by Father John Whiteford on objections to ROCOR unification with Moscow. Father John published this article in response to an epistle of Archpriest Gregory Williams to the ROCOR Synod in December. I am hardly qualified to make judgments about Church matters, but have made references to the works of the saints and the hierarchs of the Church in responding to several of Father John's arguments. I have reproduced his text in its entirety below, with my own responses and rebuttals juxtaposed in red.
Respectfully,
Pravoslavnik
Answers to Current Objections to the Reconciliation of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
-Fr. John Whiteford
Code: Select all
A priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) has recently issued an open letter in which he has stated his objections to reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. In his letter, he admits that he might be wrong, and so I take his words as an invitation to engage his arguments, and hopefully reason with him and others who have been swayed by similar arguments on the matter.
Argument 1: The Moscow Patriarchate is a Pseudo-Church, with no connection to the Pre-Revolutionary Russian Church or the New Martyrs.
“Were the Moscow Patriarchate what it pretends to be, and is in effect proclaimed to be by the proposed “Act of Canonical Communion” — that is, truly the Orthodox Church of Russia, then there would be no question: we, ROCOR, must either resume our place within it, or be canonically established as a wholly independent body. But, historically and ecclesiologically, I cannot see this to be the case. But what is today known as the Moscow Patriarchate has no historical or theological continuity with the Orthodox Church of Russia, the Church of St. Tikhon and the New- Martyrs and Confessors. By the might of the Soviet state, the once-legitimate Metropolitan Sergius, having gone into schism, became at best a usurper, at worst an outright impostor and fraud.”
Code: Select all
On what canonical basis can it be asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate has no continuity with the Russian Church? Here we are told that Metropolitan Sergius was “once-legitimate”, but at what council was he declared to be illegitimate? He was without a doubt the deputy locum tenens, who had been placed in Church of the leadership of the Church, pending the release of St. Peter of Krutitsa… which never happened. His declaration on 1927 resulted in a division in the Russian Church, but the Church was not in a position to judge the matter in any normal or conciliar way. And so while we affirm that those who refused to commemorate him were not schismatics for refusing to do so, we have never asserted that Metropolitan Sergius, or those who remained in communion with him were schismatics either. The fact is, we glorified New Martyrs who remained in communion with him, and the Moscow Patriarchate has glorified New Martyrs who did not remain in communion with him.
**REBUTTAL**
Here Father John Whiteford misstates the question. The real question is not whether the administration of Metropolitan Sergius was denounced in Council—though, in fact, the ROCOR Synod formally refused (after July 1927) to recognize Metropolitan Sergius, Alexey I, Pimen, and Alexy II as legitimate hierarchs of the Russian Church in council—it is whether Sergius had any legitimate canonical status as a chief hierarch of the Russian Church in the first place. This issue was addressed unequivocally, in the negative, by several epistles of Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, one of the three legitimate Locum Tenans designated by Patriarch Tikhon prior to his death. Here is one example of St. Cyril’s written statements on this important subject:
Epistle No. 4 of St. Cyril of Kazan: January, 1934
The disorder in the Russian Orthodox Church I view not as concerning the teaching which She holds, but as concerning administration. The preservation of a fitting order in church administration from the death of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon until the calling of a lawful Church Council is secured by the Testament of His Holiness the Patriarch, which he gave by authority of a special right given only to himself. This Testament is the norm of the administration of the Russian Church until the content of this Testament shall be entirely exhausted. The Hierarch who bears the obligations of the Patriarchal Locum Tenans preserves his church authority until the election by a Council of a new Patriarch. If there is a delay in the election of a Patriarch, the Locum Tenans remains in his post until death…He has no authority to assign for himself a Substitute with rights identical to his own rights as Locum Tenans.
There is simply no basis for the assertion that those who remained in communion with Metropolitan Sergius ceased to be a part of the Russian Church. To begin with, ROCOR itself never asserted this… and in fact very often specifically stated just the opposite.
So a few questions arise here. If a legitimate Bishop ceases to be a legitimate bishop, does this not require a conciliar verdict from a synod of bishops with the authority to render such a verdict? According to the Canons, a minimum of 12 bishops are required to judge another bishop… when did such a trial take place and depose Metropolitan Sergius from his office?
Code: Select all
Furthermore, ROCOR never claimed to have deposed Metropolitan Sergius or any other bishop of the MP, much less did it ever claim to condemn the entire MP as being outside the Church.
#####REBUTTAL#####
Code: Select all
On September 9, 1927 the ROCOR Synod formally announced its loyalty to the rightful Locum Tenans of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, and its refusal to accept the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius of July 16/29, 1927.
On May 29, 1928 Metropolitan Sergius, the illegitimate substitute for the designated Locum Tenans hierarchs of the Russian Church formally declared the ROCOR Synod to be abolished.
On October 3/16, 1943 the ROCOR Synod issued a statement not recognizing the “patriarchate” of Metropolitan Sergius.
On April 26/May 9, 1946 the ROCOR Synod did not accept the election of Alexey I.
On September 1/14, 1971 The ROCOR Synod issued a formal “Refusal to Recognize Patriarch Pimen.”
On July 14/27 The ROCOR Synod did not recognize the election of Patriarch Alexis II of the Moscow Patriarchate.
[/color]
Code: Select all
Aside from that, if we were discussing a dispute in a generic local Church, and group 1 claimed that group 2 was outside the Church, or illegitimate, and this dispute resulted from some problem that had disrupted Church order to such an extent that it was no longer obvious what the legitimate lines of authority in that Church were, how would we expect to see a canonical resolution to this problem… If the two parties never came to any agreement on their own?
####REBUTTAL#####
To clarify whether “group #1 or group #2 are legitimate representatives of the Holy Church in a dispute, one must look first and foremost to their origins, according to Apostolic succession and Church canons.
On this issue Father John Whiteford is simply misstating the historical facts. It is quite obvious from the writings of St. Cyril of Kazan, of St. John of San Francisco, and of the Holy Synods of the ROCOR, what the legitimate lines of authority were in the Russian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century, although there is a great deal of obfuscation on this subject by the Moscow Patriarchate and its proponents in the ROCOR.
The Church Authority which became the ROCOR, under the eldest and chief hierarch, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsy, was established by a legitimate Ukase of Patriarch Tikhon, in an attempt to save the Church from the atheistic Bolshevik regime. In contrast, the “patriarchate” formed by Metropolitan Sergius and the NKVD was not a legitimate church authority, proceeding from Patriarch Tikhon, as the collective epistles of St. Cyril of Kazan, and the rulings of the ROCOR Synods have shown. Following the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in July of 1927, the Orthodox Churches of Russia were shut down and destroyed on a massive scale—or blasphemously converted to secular uses-- and the dissenting hierarchs and priests were imprisoned and executed throughout Russia. “Group #2” repeatedly denied before the world that this persecution of the Holy Church was happening. I cannot judge them, however, because they were living under horrific circumstances.
If the two parties never came to any agreement on their own? Obviously, the rest of the Church would have to help resolve the matter. In the case of the MP, did the rest of the Church ever hold the position that the MP was illegitimate? No.
Response: Why on earth didn’t they? I have never understood why the hierarchs of the non-Russian Orthodox Churches did not look closely to their brother hierarchs within the ROCOR--Metropolitan Anthony, St. John Maximovitch, and others-- for the "inside" (Russian) account of what was really happening to the Church in the Soviet Union after 1919. These jurisdictions--Constantinople, Antioch, Metropolia-- were also actively engaged in modernizing their praxis in the twentieth century, and even moved, en masse, to the Gregorian Calendar. They have hardly been models of Orthodox canonicity in that regard, or with regard to the non-recognition of the NKVD administration of Metropolitan Sergius. I departed from the Antiochian Archdiocese for the ROCOR a decade ago partly because I perceived that the Antiochian heirarchs were being fundamentally dishonest about the issue of Sergianism.
And if anyone were to dismiss this fact by claiming that all the rest of the Church has been compromised by Ecumenism, even if that were so, the fact remains that the rest of the Church did not condemn the MP in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s or 60’s… and I don’t think even the Old Calendarists (with the exception of the Matthewites) would claim that the rest of the Church had fallen into heresy at that point.
Code: Select all
Essentially, the only evidence that can be cited to support the claim that Metropolitan Sergius ceased to be legitimate is the private opinions of particular priests and bishops.
###REBUTTAL###
Code: Select all
Patriarch Tikhon designated three Locum Tenans to act in his stead in the event of his imprisonment and/or murder: Metropolitans Agafangel of Yaroslavl, Peter of Krutitsa, and Cyril of Kazan. He also issued the Ukase authorizing Metropolitan Anthony to establish an independent Church Authority. Metroplitan Sergius, in contrast, was clearly not designated as a legitimate Locum Tenans of the Patriarchate by St. Tikhon, and he usurped the lawful role of St. Cyril while Metropolitan Cyril was still alive (in prison) for many years. In any case, as St. Cyril stated, even if Sergius had been the lawful Locum Tenans, he would not have had authority to organize a patriarchal administration or issue edicts, but would only implement the decisions and policies of the Patriarch until such time as a free and independent election of a legitimate Patriarch could occur. Such an election has never occurred in Russia since 1917. In essence, St. Cyril of Kazan was the legitimate Locum Tenans of the Church when he issued his epistles from prison, since Metropolitans Agafangel and Peter were missing and/or deceased at the time. The judgments of St. Cyril on the legitimacy of Sergius’s administration—and the decisions of the legitimate Synod in exile—can hardly be compared to mere “private opinions of particular priests or bishops.” Is Father John Whiteford denying these basic historical facts, or is he simply unaware of the historical record?
[/color]
But from a canonical standpoint, since when has the mere private opinions of anyone been sufficient to depose a bishop or anathematize a whole Church? Does anyone really wish to say that such opinions are of greater weight than official statements of ROCOR, and the positions of all the rest of the Orthodox Church since the 1930’s?
The following comments from Fr. Alexander Lebedeff are instructive here:
Code: Select all
“Is the Moscow Patriarchate a Church?
When this question is brought up, it immediately begs the question --- if it is not a Church, when did it stop being a Church?
No one seriously doubts that the Moscow Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Tikhon was the legitimate canonical Church of Russia.
No one seriously doubts that Metropolitan Peter was the legitimate Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne.
No one seriously doubts that Metropolitan Sergius was the legitimate Deputy (or Vice) Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, according to the instructions of Metropolitan Peter.
###REBUTTAL###
Code: Select all
Can a “deputy” Locum Tenans, not appointed by the legitimate Patriarch, legitimately usurp the role of the designated Locum Tenans—at least one of whom was still alive until 1937—and formulate and promulgate new edicts and policies? Here is the fatal flaw in Father Alexander Lebedeff’s argument. St. Cyril of Kazan made it quite clear in his last epistle (1934) that the administration of Metropolitan Sergius and the NKVD would cease to have any prospect of legitimate canonical status once the three designated Locum Tenans of Patriarch Tikhon had died, until such time as a free and proper election of new Patriarch could occur. The ROCOR Synod of Metropolitan Anthony affirmed St. Cyril’s position by formally recognizing Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa as the head of the Russian Church, and denouncing Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration in September, 1929. Now everyone wants to rewrite history—somewhat like the old Soviet history books where photos of Politburo members—Trotsky, Bukharin, Beria, etc were continually being erased.
[/color]
So--when did he and his Synod become not the Church?
Code: Select all
Certainly not as a result of his signing the "Declaration" of 1927.
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia absolutely did not think so, since it addressed an Epistle to the Flock in 1933 (six years **after** the Declaration), where it says:
"We are taking fully into account the extraordinary difficulties of the position of Metropolitan Sergius, who is now the de facto head of the Church of Russia, and are aware of the heavy burden of responsibility for the fate of the latter, which lies upon him. No one, therefore, has the audacity to accuse him for the mere attempt to enter into dialogue with the Soviet regime so as to obtain legal standing for the Church of Russia. Not without foundation does the deputy locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne say in his aforementioned Declaration that only "armchair dreamers can think that such a vast community as our Orthodox Church, with all its organization, can exist peacefully in a country while walling itself off from the authorities."
Response: Fair enough. It is certainly not for me, a legitimate “armchair dreamer” to judge those who were subjected to persecution by the Soviet state.
Certainly the Moscow Patriarchate was not considered by the Church Abroad to be "not the Church" in 1938, when the Bishops' Sobor Abroad issued the following resolution:
"DISCUSSED: concelebration with the clergymen of the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.
METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergymen arriving from Russia from this jurisdiction are immediately admitted into prayerful communion, and refers to the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan in his epistle, published in Tserkovnaya Zhizn' [Church Life], that Metropolitan Sergius' sin does not extend to the clergymen under him.
DECREED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful communion and concelebration with clergymen of Metropolitan Sergius."
Response: Prayerful communion and forgiveness is one thing. Subordination of the Holy Church (ROCOR) to the administrative control of the Sergianist administration is quite another.
Code: Select all
Now, some say that the Moscow Patriarchate became "not a Church" from 1943, from the time that Stalin permitted the restoration of the Patriarchate.
But, ten years later, it is clear that the Church Abroad did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate to be **not** the Church. In 1953, at the Bishops' Sobor, Metropolitan Anastassy said the following:
"Do we recognize in principle the authenticity of the ordinations of today's Patriarch and his bishops? But can we even question them? Then we would have to declare the entire Church without grace. Do we have the audacity to declare her entirely without grace? Until now we have not posed this question so radically. . .
"They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
Argument 2 – the Moscow Patriarchate is the creation of the Soviet Government
“The post-Declaration “Church” was wholly the creation of the Soviet power, conceived to further its own evil designs. Following in the same model was the “restoration” of the “patriarchate”, at Stalin’s behest.”
Code: Select all
Since the bishops of the MP were not consecrated by Stalin himself, it is obviously not true that the Synod of Metropolitan Sergius was “wholly the creation of the Soviet power”.
###REBUTTAL###
It is clear, historically, that the Bolshevik government directly interfered with the legitimate authority and continuity of the Russian Orthodox Church by murdering or imprisoning all of the hierarchs who did not cooperate with their systematized destruction of the Church. Furthermore, the recently published Mitrokhin archives—if they are to be believed—indicate that the KGB has actively infiltrated the Russian Orthodox Churches and seminaries, and has promoted only those priests and hierarchs most loyal to the state during the past fifty years.
And how was his synod more the creation of Soviet power than the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the creation of Islamic power after the fall of Constantinople? Need it be pointed out that the Ecumenical Patriarch was an official of the Turkish government, who levied taxes on the Christians on behalf of the state… a state which was actively destroying Churches or converting them to Mosques, rounding up Christian boys and raising them as Moslems soldiers who were then used to persecute their own people, and stealing Christian girls and sending them off to harems… or worse. Do we wish to forget that the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate were forced to purchase their offices from the Turks who gave them to the highest bidder (which is expressly forbidden by the canons), and to raise that money from the already abused and downtrodden Christians under the Turkish Yoke? Need we be reminded that the Ecumenical Patriarch was forced to excommunicate the Greek revolutionaries who revolted against the Turks in order to throw off the yoke of the Moslems? And when you look at what is left of Christianity in Turkey today and compare it with what is left in Russia, as a simple matter of objectivity, one must conclude that the Turks did a far more thorough job of destroying the Church there than the Communists did in Russia.
Response: It is true that the Moslems annihilated the Holy Churches of Anatolia. The Bolsheviks and their atheistic successors took a different approach with the Russian Orthodox faithful. A Russian monk had some interesting things to say on this subject some years ago:
Code: Select all
“Now the devil’s plan has become clear: it was not to eternally establish the Bolshevik dictatorship in Russia, but during the atheistic chaos to enter into the very structure of the Church and capture it.
[/color]
Code: Select all
Now, perhaps someone will object that this is an illegitimate analogy. However, this is precisely the analogy that St. John (Maximovitch) himself applied to the situation:
“Did not a similar thing occur in Greece? Why did the Church of Greece arise and why does it exist as an autocephalous Church, whereas its territory from antiquity was a part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? When in 1819-20 there was a rebellion of the Greeks against the Turks, the Turkish government demanded of the Patriarch the excommunication of the rebellious Greeks, and the Patriarch fulfilled this. Although the Greeks well knew that he was only outwardly fulfilling what was demanded of him, remaining heart and soul with them, nonetheless, declaring his interdicts invalid, they began to govern themselves ecclesiastically independently of him; and when a government of Greece was formed, an independent Church of Greece was established.”
-History of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, by St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/roca_history.aspx
Response: But let us not stop quoting St. John’s monograph so quickly. In the same text, he goes on to say:
Code: Select all
“Who needs the annihilation of the Russian Church Abroad? Russian exiles? The Russian Diaspora? After all, it is precisely the Church Abroad that gives the Diaspora spiritual power, which unites it and prevents it from completely disappearing…The cessation of the separate existence of the Church Abroad is needful and advantageous only to the Soviet government. Through the clergy, it wants to have control over the emigration and influence over it.” (Op. cit.)
[/color]
But did the rest of the Church ever condemn the Ecumenical Patriarchate for their compromises with the Turks? No. The rest of the Church understood that the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate were doing the best that they could, in an extremely difficult situation, and that this should be left for God to judge.
Argument 3 – Only ROCOR and the Catacomb Church are the Legitimate Heirs of the Pre-Revolutionary Russian Church.
“Unless we engage in Soviet-style rewriting of history (and it seems there are many so occupied), this history cannot be undone. What was created was at best a schism (the legitimate Orthodox Church of Russia continuing within Russia in the catacombs, outside Russia in what is now known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia).”
What is not addressed here is the fact that most of the Catacomb Church was reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate after the election of Patriarch Alexei I after World War II.
Response: Oh, really? Why, then, did the ROCOR Synod ratify the “Statutes for the Parishes of the Free Russian Orthodox Church” located in Russia on May 2/15, 1990? And why did the ROCOR hierarchs secretly consecrate a catacomb bishop in Russia in 1982?
Here is a link to a post from about 9 years ago, by Dr. Joseph Mclellan, Ph.D, (Senior Lecturer in Slavic Languages and Literature, Princeton University), in response to a post of mine:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa ... -3&O=D&T=1
And it is simply a fact that our bishops did not recognize any catacomb bishops in the 80's or 90's. I don't doubt that there were pockets of catacomb congregations that survived on some level, without bishops... but I don't think we can speak of a “Church” that has no bishops... since St. Ignatius of Antioch says that no Church can be called such without Bishops, priests, and deacons (Trallians 3:1). So if a Church in Russia survived at all, it was the Moscow Patriarchate.
Response: See previous comment. Check your historical facts.
And St. John of Shanghai, who was well aware of the failings of Metropolitan Sergius, nevertheless went briefly into communion with Patriarchate Alexei I, when he thought that ROCOR had ceased to exists after World War II… and so evidently, he believed that they were a legitimate Church:
“At the end of July last year we received news that the hierarchs in Harbin had decided to ask His Holiness Patriarch Alexis to receive them under his jurisdiction. We immediately wrote to Archbishop Victor that, since we do not have any information about the fate of the Synod Abroad and since we don’t have the right to remain outside submission to a higher church authority, we also must enter into contact with His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and should there be no impediments [pri otsutstvii prepyatsviy] submit to him. After the Exaltation of the Cross we received a radiogram from Geneva from Metropolitan Anastassy with news that the Synod is functioning. Aware of the necessity of submitting to a higher church authority, we renewed our previous relations with the Synod Abroad. We received separate instructions and directives from the Synod, which we put into effect. We can go over to the jurisdiction of another church authority only if we have a directive to do so from the church authority to which we currently submit, for otherwise we would be acting in violation of the Church’s canons.”
Response: So, where is our Higher Church Authority now, in the Kremlin?
-St. John (Maximovitch)'s Explanatory Address to the Flock of Shanghai dated August 2, 1946, quoted in "St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco and His View of the Russian Church in the 20th Century", by Protopriest Peter Perekrestov
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01n ... ntury.html
Now those who say that we cannot reconcile with the MP with Patriarch Alexei II as its head, and with Vladimir Putin calling the shots in Moscow should ask why they are so much wiser than St. John of Shanghai, who found “no impediments” to submitting to Patriarch Alexei I, while Joseph Stalin was calling the shots in Moscow.
Response: I notice, in your example from the life of St. John, that he immediately pursued the course of remaining with the highest extant Church Authority available outside of the Moscow Patriarchate. Hopefully the ROCOR faithful will have a similar, viable alternative after May 17th.
Argument 4 – The Moscow Patriarchate is condemned by the Anathema against Ecumenism.
“It was a schism (or far worse) compounded by its later engagement in ecumenism, rightly condemned by the Anathema proclaimed by our Church.”
The problem with this assertion is that it ignores what was said about the meaning of the Anathema against Ecumenism when it was issued, and it also ignores the fact that Anathemas are not like landmines that blow you up when you step on them. They do not impose themselves on those who violate them. Anathemas are warnings to the faithful, and individuals or local Churches are only separated from the Church by an anathema when a Synod of Bishops with the authority to do so, pronounces such a verdict on them. The purpose of an anathema is the salvation of the faithful, not their damnation. Anathemas guide us to the truth, and away from error. They are not legalistic traps, designed to catch the unsuspecting and send them off to hell.
Let’s consider the words of Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov) on the matter:
“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 ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)”, by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_anath.aspx
Aside from the fact that our anathema against those who hold to the branch theory of the Church was not applied by our bishops to any specific individuals or local Churches, the Moscow Patriarchate has joined us in condemning that very same heresy.
“…The so-called "branch theory", which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totally unacceptable. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize "the equality of the denominations". Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal. Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realize that, in spite of all the differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in "what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors…. It is inadmissible to introduce relativism into the realm of faith, to limit unity in faith to a narrow set of necessary truths so that beyond them "freedom in what is doubtful" may be allowed.”
From “The Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward Other Christian Confessions”, which was approved by the All-Russian Sobor of the Moscow Patriachate in August 2000.
No doubt, despite this very clear and official rejection of the heresy of Ecumenism, there will be those who will point to individuals in the Moscow Patriarchate who have made questionable statements or engaged in questionable actions. However, if it is to be argued that we should wait until the Moscow Patriarchate is a perfect Church, should we not first ask when the Church in Russia has ever been such? There have always been the occasional bishop or priest who said or did something that we would find objectionable. In fact, some of the saints of the Russian Church, such as St. Tikhon the Confessor, engaged in some questionable activities with the Anglicans… and this did not make the Pre-Revolutionary Church a pseudo-Church, or diminish his own personal sanctity.
Response: The back-pedaling and rhetorical gymnastics of our ROCOR hierarchs and delegates on this issue of ecumenism would be almost amusing, if the subject were not so important. Everyone went into the All-Diaspora Conference with righteous concerns about Moscow and World Council of Churches, and came out of the conference saying that they were troubled by the issue of ecumenism, but not enough, of course, to interfere with the carefully orchestrated hierarchical dance toward unification on May 17th. I do not know enough about this issue to say anything of note on the subject, and will defer to the Church, as always.
Anyone who wishes to think that there was ever a time when things were perfect in the Russian Church should get their hands of a copy of “The Autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum”, and read up on the origins of the Old Believer Schism. The Israelites were never perfect, the churches in the New Testament were never perfect, and there has never been a time subsequent to that in which any local Church was perfect. And yet God mercifully saves the faithful in the Church, despite all our failings as individuals within her.
Finally, even if it were true that the Russian Church Outside of Russia had ever condemned the Moscow Patriarchate, and declared them all to be graceless, this would not prevent us from reconciling with them, if Church history is any guide to the matter. I can’t make the case better than Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, and so will simply quote his words here:
“Speaking of unequivocal conciliar determinations, it is interesting to note what occurred several years after that completely definitive statement of the Sobor of Bishops declaring the of Mysteries of those in the Evlogian schism as being invalid and without grace.
A bit of historical perspective, first.
There was much more to the Evlogian schism than just the fact of Metropolitan Evlogy breaking away from the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad and establishing his independent ecclesiastical organization (which later vacillated several times between complete independence, submission to the Moscow Patriarchate, and submission to the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
There were significant cultural, political, ideological, and theological issues that separated the two spheres of Russian Orthodoxy in Europe.
One was simply cultural bias— the Russian emigres in Paris considered themselves the creme de la creme of the Russian emigration, and looked down upon the Russian emigres in the Balkans as second-class citizens.
Another was political. Metropolitan Evlogy was absolutely opposed to the Church Abroad taking a stand on the issue of the restoration of the monarchy in Russia, and especially on the stand that if monarchy were restored, then it must be restored to the Romanoff dynasty. (Actually, Metropolitan Anastassy shared Metropolitan Evlogy's on this point). Metropolitan Anthony, on the other hand, was adamant that the Church take a stand for the restoration of the Romanoff throne.
A third issue had to do with Freemasonry. Metropolitan Evlogy and his church were considered to be, to a certain extent, under the influence of Masonic organizations, specifically the YMCA (which continued to be the publisher of all religious literature put out by the Parisian Exharchate for many decades), and the RSKhD—the Russian Student Christian Movement.
And finally, there was a significant theological issue—the fact that the several prominent members of the faculty of St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris were involved in the "Sophian Brotherhood" and espoused the heresy of "Sophianism" — the idea that there was another "female" hypostasis—namely "Sophia"—the Wisdom of God. This heresy was analysed by the renowned theologian, Archbishop Seraphim of Bulgaria, and was condemned by the Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad.
Add to this all the fact that there were many erudite supporters of Metropolitan Evlogy and that some very acrimonious letters and articles were published by both sides, and it easy to understand the depth of the rift between the two parts of the Russian Church in Europe.
As I had posted previously, the Sobor of Bishops unanimously and unequivocally declared, in 1927, that Metropolitan Evlogy and his clergy were outside the Church and that their Mysteries were null and void, and devoid of grace.
But let us see what happened later.
In 1935, when under the auspices of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, a special convocation was held in Belgrade with the specific goal of reuniting all of the separated parts of the Russian Church that were abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy participated (as did Metropolitan Theophilus from the North American Diocese, which had also separated from the Synod). When Metropolitan Evlogy agreed to and signed the Temporary Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia all of the sanctions that had been so unequivocally placed on him and his clergy just melted away. Set aside were all of the mutual acrimonious accusations and counter-accusations; set aside was the question of the restoration of the Romanoff dynasty; set aside was the issue of Masonic influence; set aside, even, was the question of the Sophianist heresy and the Orthodoxy of the faculty of St. Sergius Institute.
And, in a special resolution of the Sobor of Bishops, all Mysteries performed by the Evlogians while they were in schism were declared to be valid, and all ordinations performed by him and his vicar bishops were accepted as being valid, as well.
So, this lesson from history teaches us something very important. Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy (who both participated in this special convocation) were very open to any overtures that would heal the rift in the Russian Orthodox Church—even to the point of nullifying the unequivocal canonical sanctions and declarations of the absence of grace in the mysteries performed by those in schism from the Church.
If we read Archbishop Vitaly's (Maximenko) description of task entrusted him by the Sobor of Bishops in 1934, we also must come to the conclusion that the Synod so wished to achieve ecclesiastical unity on this continent, that it was perfectly willing to gloss over the significant issues that had led to the separation of the North American Diocese from the rest of the Church Abroad. Archbishop Vitaly was explicitly told that he was to serve with all of the various ecclesiastical groupings on this continent, and that the Synod would support whoever would be elected at an All-American Sobor to head the Church here, no matter what jurisdiction that newly-elected hierarch would be from.
This bit of historical perspective clearly demonstrates the willingness of the Synod to open channels of communication and to forgive and forget past wrongs in order to reestablish and preserve the unity of the Church.
If the Synod could set aside "yako ne byvshii" (as if they had never been) absolutely categorical declarations of the absence of grace among the Evlogians, could in not be perceived as within the realm of possibility that such compassion could be extended to the long-suffering Christians of the Church in Russia, especially considering that no conciliar categorical declaration on the absence of grace among the Sergianists has ever been made?”
“Is the Moscow Patriarchate the "Mother Church" of the ROCOR?” by Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff
Code: Select all
See: “Voices of Reason,” for more information