http://ruschurchabroad.com/eng071116.pdf
Standing Holy Synod in Resistance
Extraordinary Meeting
V, (November 16, 2007 [Old Style])
I. On November 16, 2007 (Old Style), the Standing Holy Synod of the
Orthodox Church of Greece, Synod in Resistance, convened for a special
meeting (V).
- His Grace, Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi, as Acting President, presided over
this meeting, which was attended by Their Graces, Bishops Chrysostomos of
Christianoupolis, Ambrose of Methone, and Klemes of Gardikion, the lat-
ter serving as Secretary. Also taking part, as special attendees, were His Em-
inence, Bishop George of Alania, who is briefly sojourning in Greece, and
His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris, First Hierarch of the
Temporary Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration of the Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad. - The two sessions (morning and afternoon) of this protracted Fifth
Meeting were held at the Headquarters of the Holy Synod in Resistance, that
is, at the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, near Phyle, Attica,
Greece.
* * *
II. The extended Standing Holy Synod dealt exclusively with a single
topic, but one which had many dimensions, of course (hence the long dura-
tion of the two sessions):
The full implementation of the Seventh Resolution adopted at the regular
annual meeting (the thirty-fourth/October 4, 2007 [Old Style]) of the entire
Holy Synod in Resistance, to wit, the formalization and consolidation of our
communion with His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris and,
furthermore, our coöperation in Consecrating Bishops, when requested to do
so, in order to strengthen the diocesan structure of his jurisdiction. - His Grace, Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi, the Acting President, welcomed
His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel to this joint Meeting with a special Exhor-
tatory Address [vide infra], in which he adverted to the historical origins of
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Greek Old Calendarist Anti-
Ecumenists; the fall of the segment of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
(ROCA) under Metropolitan Laurus through the disavowal of its Historical
Heritage; the historic obligation of Bishop Agafangel to preserve this heritage
unadulterated; and, as well, our unshakable intention to support him in his
sacred struggle in clear and concrete ways.
• His Grace, the Acting President underscored with particular empha-
sis that
This is an historic moment, since it represents a salient point on our com-
mon journey, the origins of which go back to the 1960s; but at the same
time, it constitutes the inception of a truly new period in our common
struggle—and one that we wage on many fronts—for the unity of the
Church.
And he concluded by expressing the wish that
the Most Blessed Theotokos bless this joint meeting between us, so that it
might be fruitful and constructive, at all times within the perspective of
our Unitive Vision and within the parameters of our shared Historical
Heritage. - His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris, in his Response,
which was marked by its irenic, sober, and profound character, discussed the
background to the recent tragedy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,
leading to its union with the Moscow Patriarchate, and the unconciliar (ex-
tra-synodal) nature of the methods used by the unionists in order to attain
their goal.
In particular, he emphasized the necessity of restoring the tarnished pres-
tige of the authentic Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as well as maintain-
ing its historical continuation. - The Acting President, with the concurrence of all the Hierarchs present,
ardently urged Bishop Agafangel to proceed unwaveringly in his sacred en-
deavor and not to be deflected by the temptation of discouragement, no mat-
ter what difficulties he might encounter.
• Our Holy Synod is prepared to assist him in a variety of ways, both now
and in the future. - Next, His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel responded to the many differ-
ent questions posed by the members of our Holy Synod, in order to clarify
sundry issues of theological, historical, and practical significance.
• Bishop Agafangel’s responses were notable for their sincerity, complete-
ness, and sobriety, and His Eminence was affable, patient, and calm through-
out, gauged by his prayer rope.
III. During the morning session, His Eminence also touched on the fol-
lowing matters in general terms: - Separation from persons dear to one on account of the union be-
tween the ROCA and the Moscow Patriarchate is a wound. There is a need
for new Hierarchs, and organization of that segment of the Russian Ortho-
dox Church Abroad which did not accept the union is an immediate priori-
ty. Those who withdrew from the ROCA before the union have taken meas-
ures and proclaimed ecclesiological views not in accordance with those of the
original ROCA. What the criteria for a correct stand are. - With regard to the late Archbishop Lazar (Zurbenko, †2005) and his
successors under Archbishop Tikhon:
• Bishop Agafangel has proposed to them that they return whence they
departed and that they examine together, in a synodal framework, the pos-
sibility of forming a single jurisdiction. However, to date there has not been
a clear response from them; they cannot be recognized as a [legitimate] ju-
risdiction. - His Eminence adverted to certain other groups within Russia which,
though headed by Bishops, are non-canonical (the faction under Valentin,
the followers of the late Metropolitan Vitaly, et al.) and pointed out, among
other things, their extremist ecclesiological tendencies.
• Support is being given to the missionary work of the ROCA (His Emi-
nence mentioned the Holy Land and Jerusalem, Haiti, etc.).
• His Eminence expressed agreement over the possibility, following syn-
odal deliberation, of altering the title “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,”
so as not to cause confusion, since this jurisdiction is undergoing expansion
also within Russia. - The Acting President, with the aid of the other members of the Holy
Synod, responded to questions posed by Bishop Agafangel by clarifying the
following two important issues, in order to dispel any misunderstanding,
given the confusion occasioned by uncontrolled rumors:
i. The nature of our ecclesiological differences with other Old Calendarist
jurisdictions in Greece, and especially with the most prominent of these Syn-
ods [that of Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiouses)], which poses as the suc-
cessor of the Holy Synod of the late Archbishop Auxentios; the reasons why
we are not in communion with them; the common ecclesiological basis of
our union with the ROCA (1994); and how unions achieved (in the 1970s)
were ruptured primarily on account of ecclesiological differences between
the ROCA and the other “True Orthodox Christians.”
All of the Old Calendarists in Greece proclaim that they (allegedly) con-
stitute—each one singly—the One Church set forth in the Holy Symbol
of Faith and that all who are not in communion with them are, supposed-
ly, outside the Church; that is to say, these groups have lost any sense of the
Catholicity of the Church, are exclusivistic and sectarian, and are intolerant to-
wards those who disagree with them, even to the point of persecuting them.
This attitude on their part—since they turned against us, too—impelled us
to wall ourselves off from them and to organize ourselves as Orthodox in re-
sistance (1985-).
In conclusion, our unconditional criterion for any union whatsoever
with the Old Calendarist anti-ecumenists, wherever they may be, continues
to be that of an Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a purely ecclesiological issue.
ii. The significance and purpose of a possible (renewed) dialogue with
the “official” New Calendar Church of Greece; that under no circumstances
should the objective of such dialogue be construed as our absorption within,
submission to, or incorporation into the innovationist New Calendar Church,
or as a union of the kind negotiated by the ROCA and the Moscow Patriar-
chate. This is borne out by the historical development of an earlier endeavor
(i.e., dialogue with the New Calendar Church of Greece) of the same kind
(1998-2000), on the basis of documents that are extant preserved and which
were published. - His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel had already studied, in Russian
translation, the draft of a document entitled “Memorandum Regarding
Principles of Coöperation Between the Greek and Russian Anti-Ecumenists”
(I. Introduction—§§1-2; II. Causes of the Rupture of Communion—§§1-3; III.
Unity and a Common Perspective—§§1-3; IV. Corollaries of Unity—§§1-4). His
Eminence had no reservations about, or objections to, the views set forth in
this document, and for this reason he readily signed it, along with the mem-
bers of the Holy Synod.
• This Document, truly momentous in terms of its subject matter, consti-
tutes the written basis [for our future coöperation], for it contains historical,
theological, and ecclesiological data of major significance, views the future
with perspicacity, deals with [potentially] explosive developments in a deci-
sive manner, and is founded upon the sanguine perspective of our Unitive
Vision within the parameters of our shared Historical Heritage.
IV. During the afternoon session, His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel re-
sponded in the same constructive manner to certain further questions, clari-
fying his relationship with the ailing Russian Bishop Daniel in America, who
in essence was, and is, in agreement with the spirit and position of those who
have rejected the union between the ROCA and the Moscow Patriarchate;
[clarifying] the attitude of the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus towards him in
the wake of that union; and finally, making clear that [the perceived] insist-
ence on our part that she unite with Archbishop Tikhon as a prior condition
for communion with us has, in fact, caused confusion and the loss of certain
elements to the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiouses). - Bishop Agafangel set forth as a final and very critical issue the immedi-
ate necessity for us to coöperate, in the near future, in Consecrating Russian
Hierarchs, for the reinforcement and advancement of his work.
• Our Holy Synod responded in a unanimous and unreservedly positive
way to his request. A schedule for sending two members of our Holy Synod
to Odessa, Ukraine, was drawn up at once, and specific matters pertaining
to candidates, dates, etc. were discussed.
Such, by the intercessions of our Lady, the Theotokos, was the auspi-
cious conclusion of this truly fruitful, constructive, and unqualifiedly historic
Meeting of the Standing Holy Synod in Resistance, unto the glory of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
At the Headquarters of the Holy Synod in Resistance,
Phyle, Attica,
November 17, 2007 (Old Style)
St. Gregory of Neocæsarea, the Wonder-worker
From the Chancery of the Holy Synod
† Bishop Klemes of Gardikion
Exhortatory Address by Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi
before the Joint Meeting of the Standing
Holy Synod in Resistance with His
Eminence, Bishop Agafangel
of Odessa and Tauris
Phyle, Attica, November 16, 2007 (Old Style) Holy Apostle Matthew
Your Eminence, Holy Brother in Christ,
Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris:
In my capacity as Acting President, I have, at this moment, the excep-
tional honor of addressing you and welcoming you to this extraordinary
Meeting of the Standing Holy Synod in Resistance, and I convey to your
venerable person the cordial wishes both of our ailing First Hierarch, Met-
ropolitan Cyprian, and of all our Most Reverend and Right Reverend Hier-
archs, both present and absent.
This is an historic moment, since it represents a salient point on our com-
mon journey, the origins of which go back to the 1960s; but at the same time,
it constitutes the inception of a truly new period in our common struggle—
and one that we wage on many fronts—for the unity of the Church.
During the 1920s, each of our movements emerged, in a particular fash-
ion, on the stage of a world that was then in disarray: You, our Russian
brethren, who share a common Faith with us, were beset by the tragedy
of your fatherland and organized yourselves as a distinct and independ-
ent jurisdiction outside Russia, as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
(ROCA); we, your Greek brethren, who share a common Faith with you,
experienced the tragedy of ecclesiastical division, owing to the implemen-
tation of the New Calendar in 1924, in accordance with the agenda of the
1920 Synodal Encyclical of the Patriarchate of Constantinople—the first-fruits
of panheretical ecumenism; we walled ourselves off from the innovating ec-
umenists and formed the anti-innovationist flock of the Old Calendarist An-
ti-Ecumenist Orthodox in Greece.
Thereafter, for almost nine decades, internal and external wounds in the
bosom of our ecclesiastical communities—wounds which persist, by the
judgments which God alone knows, to this day—have caused, and contin-
ue to cause, confusion and a loss, among certain segments of the faithful, of
the criteria of our genuine ecclesiological identity. These segments have fall-
en away from the unity of our anti-heretical and Unitive Vision and have,
in consequence, fallen away from the unity of the Fathers, the Synods, and
Holy Tradition, but also from the foundational unity of the true anti-ecu-
menists, Greek and Russian alike.
Such a segment is the Holy Synod under Metropolitan Laurus, which
disavowed the Historical Heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
when it entered into union, this past May, with the Moscow Patriarchate.
Your Eminence, Holy Bishop Agafangel, as First Hierarch of the Tem-
porary Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad, has already shouldered the truly historic obligation to preserve un-
adulterated the Historical Heritage of St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, the
Holy Russian New Martyrs, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and
also of the most saintly Metropolitan Philaret, that illustrious anti-ecumen-
ist.
Our Holy Synod recognizes in your person a courageous contemporary
Confessor of the Faith, who—albeit alone, like St. Mark of Ephesus in his
day—has not shrunk, amid a multitude of adversities, from undertaking a
task that is so onerous, and yet so sacred.
By the Grace of God, we have, from the outset and in a decisive manner,
expressed our unshakable intention to support you in your sacred struggle,
not by simply and vaguely offering a helping hand, but in clear and con-
crete ways, which are contained in the draft document that we will go on
to study together, entitled “Memorandum Regarding Principles of Coöper-
ation Between the Greek and Russian Anti-Ecumenists.”
Yesterday, during your welcoming reception, you made it abundantly
clear that Love means Unity, a Unity which must be actualized. Permit me to
expand on your wise observation and to emphasize that Unity means Com-
munion, a Communion of Persons; it means interdependence; it means that
we are to live the preternatural Mystery in Christ experientially: You are to
live in us, and we in you, both together in the Uncreated Grace of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
May the Most Blessed Theotokos bless this joint meeting between us, so
that it might be fruitful and constructive, at all times within the perspec-
tive of our Unitive Vision and within the parameters of our shared Histor-
ical Heritage.
† Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi,
Acting President
Memorandum Regarding Principles of Coöperation
Between the Greek and Russian Anti-Ecumenists
At the Headquarters of the Holy Synod in Resistance,
Phyle, Attica, November 16, 2007 (Old Style)
Memory of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew
I. Introduction
- By virtue of the Seventh Resolution adopted at the regular annual
Meeting (the thirty-fourth/October 4, 2007 [Old Style]) of the Orthodox
Church of Greece, Holy Synod in Resistance, today, November 16, 2007
(Old Style), we, the Standing Holy Synod in Resistance, to wit, His Grace,
Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi, Acting President, His Eminence, Bishop George
of Alania, and also Their Graces, Bishops Chrysostomos of Christianoup-
olis, Ambrose of Methone, and Klemes of Gardikion (Secretary), together
with His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris, First Hierarch
of the Temporary Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration of the Russian Ortho-
dox Church Abroad (ROCA), have the especial blessing of convening anew
in synodal consultation. - Our Holy Synod in Resistance, like His Eminence, Bishop Agafan-
gel of Odessa and Tauris, who until recently was a member of the Holy
Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA), under Metro-
politan Laurus, has decisively rejected the union of the ROCA with the
Moscow Patriarchate (May 4/17, 2007) and has definitively severed all ec-
clesiastical communion with the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Laurus.
II. Causes of the Rupture in Communion - The decisive and definitive rejection of the union in question be-
tween the ROCA and the Moscow Patriarchate, and also the concomitant
severance by the Holy Synod in Resistance (as well as by the Romanian
and Bulgarian anti-ecumenists in communion therewith) of communion
with the Synod under Metropolitan Laurus, which communion existed
officially since 1994, was regarded as imperative, since the ROCA-Mos-
cow union de facto abrogated the ecclesiological basis and the anti-ecumenist
foundation of the union established in 1994, which contained the follow-
ing provisions:
“[a]t the present time, when apostasy is spreading and many official rep-
resentatives of Orthodoxy, such as the Patriarchate of Constantinople
and other patriarchates, are succumbing to and embracing the posi-
tion of the modernists and ecumenists, it is very important for the true
Orthodox to unite, stand together and oppose the betrayers of the Or-
thodoxy of the Holy Fathers” (Decision of the Hierarchical Council of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, No. 3/50/148, August 3/16, 1994,
§5c). - His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel holds the conviction, guided by
the Holy Spirit, that his action of walling himself off from the jurisdiction
under Metropolitan Laurus, following the union between the ROCA and
the Moscow Patriarchate, was, and remains, necessary, since the segment
of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad under him continues to preserve
unadulterated the historical heritage of the ROCA, to safeguard the pledg-
es of salvation in Christ, and to remain separated from the corruption that
stems from the spiritual disease of anti-ecclesiastical ecumenism and Ser-
gianism. - The Holy Synod in Resistance and His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel
have the common perception that, at the union between the ROCA and
the Moscow Patriarchate, not only were heterogeneous ecclesiastical bodies
welded together, but also that the way is now open for the gradual assimila-
tion of the ROCA and its de facto amalgamation by the prevailing ecumenist
mentality, by which all of the so-called official local jurisdictions of the Or-
thodox Churches have been corroded; moreover, they hold the common
conviction that the gradual loss of the ROCA’s independence and its total
absorption [by Moscow] will come about inevitably and shortly.
III. Unity and a Common Perspective - On account of these dramatic developments, which cause us the
deepest distress, the anti-ecumenists in Greece, Russia, and elsewhere, who
belong to the Holy Synod in Resistance and the jurisdiction of His Em-
inence, Bishop Agafangel, feel it necessary to declare that their liturgical
and Eucharistic communion remains in force, since it has never been rup-
tured, and that, by the Grace of God, they will remain indissolubly united,
through their love in Christ and their common ecclesiological conscious-
ness, as this was jointly professed at the union between the ROCA and the
Holy Synod in Resistance in 1994. - We do not desire, nor to be sure do we aim, to save the Church, as
we are at times superficially accused of doing, since we are unshakably con-
vinced that, in being walled off from the ecumenists, we constitute the an-
ti-innovationist Orthodox flock and exist within the unity of the Church,
within the unity of the Fathers and the Synods, adopting, not the anti-ec-
clesiastical Primacy of administration and jurisdiction, but the Primacy of
Truth, as taught by St. Mark of Ephesus: “[T]he more [we] distance [our-
selves] from” the innovators, “the closer [we] draw to God and all the faith-
ful and Holy Fathers; and to the extent that [we] separate [ourselves] from”
the innovators, “even so [are we] united with the truth and the Holy Fa-
thers and theologians of the Church” (cf. Patrologia Græca, Vol. CLX, col.
536CD). - The God-pleasing perspective of the Greek and Russian anti-ecu-
menists remains fundamentally unitive, since it aims at the pacification and
reunion of the divided Orthodox through a synodal condemnation of ecu-
menism and at a return to the traditional Church Calendar. It is within this
unitive perspective that the ROCA formerly operated, actively and deci-
sively—and especially under the most saintly Metropolitan Philaret (1965-
1985) and thereafter.
IV. Corollaries of Unity - The Orthodox anti-ecumenists of Greece, Russia, and elsewhere, be-
ing profoundly convinced as to the heretical and syncretistic nature of ecu-
menism, and regarding it as literally a panheresy, express their common re-
solve to walk together in union and in opposition to the encroachment of
this ecclesiological heresy. - The strengthening of our relations will be expressed, at the outset,
through the ready coöperation of the Holy Synod in Resistance in Conse-
crating Russian Hierarchs, in order to strengthen the diocesan structure of
the jurisdiction under His Eminence, Bishop Agafangel. - We emphasize, on both sides, respect for jurisdictional prerogatives,
on the basis of the Sacred Canons, in each territory, and also the possibility
of implementing, after fraternal consultation in Christ, a special relation-
ship of a temporary nature between certain Priests, parishes, and monas-
teries existing within the territory of one of the two jurisdictions, but be-
ing served, by oikonomia, by the other. - It is necessary that our unity be further expressed through com-
memoration of Their Eminences, the First Hierarchs, at Divine Liturgies,
through festal letters, through concelebrations, from time to time, on sol-
emn Feast Days, through mutual aid in exceptional circumstances (hu-
manitarian crises, etc.), and also through every other suitable ecclesiastical
means, always in the spirit of evangelical love in Christ.
* * *
In the hope that the Most Blessed Theotokos and the sacred cloud of
the Holy New Martyrs of Orthodoxy will bless, strengthen, and guide us
in our common journey towards the union of the Church in the Truth
of the Faith, and unto the glory of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, we jointly sign the present Memorandum Regarding Principles
of Coöperation Between the Greek and Russian Anti-Ecumenists.
The Standing Holy Synod
in Resistance
† Cyprian of Oreoi,
Acting President
† George of Alania
† Chrysostomos of Christianoupolis
† Ambrose of Methone
† Klemes of Gardikion, Secretary
The First Hierarch of the
Temporary Supreme Ecclesiastical
Administration of the ROCA
† Agafangel of Odessa and Tauris