ARE ROCOR DISSENTERS "DONATISTS"?

[Pravoslavnik]

A number of clerics in the MP-ROCOR have recently been referring to ROCOR dissenters from the Act of Canonical Communion as Donastist "schismatics." This is a reference to the 4th century schism in the North African Church which was ultimately condemned by the Emperors Constantine and Constans, St. Augustine of Hippo, and, by a general Church council. I have been reading up on the history of the Donatist schism to clarify what issues were involved, and how these issues may or may not be similar to the current predicament of ROCOR dissenters, like myself.

Code: Select all

   As I understand it, the Donatists were a fairly large group of Orthodox clergy and laypeople in Africa who refused to recognize or commune with hierarchs and priests who had "betrayed" the Church during the persecutions of Diocletian, called "traditores."  Some of the more radical Donatists, called "Circumcellions," even became violent toward the "traditores", even burning their churches and homes, and murdering people.  In turn, the Donatists were intermittently persecuted by the Roman state.

    Apparently, St. Augustine, and others within the Church, did not consider the Donatists to be [i]heretics[/i], per se, but did consider them to be "schismatics," who sinned by breaking the unity of the Church through pride.

     The analogy with modern ROCOR dissenters, including myself, seems fairly obvious.  I have tended to view the Moscow Patriarchate as a church of "traditores" who collaborated with the atheistic Soviet state during the terrible persecution of the Church in Soviet Russia.  Hence, I have separated myself from my own ROCOR bishop and parish, thinking it wrong to enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.  Like the "traditores" of the 4th century, the Moscow Patriarchate is also now in communion with all of the major Orthodox Church administrations in the world--those of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greeks, Serbians, Antiochians, OCA, etc.

     The Donatists argued that the Church of the "traditores" was not really the true Church, but, historically, the Church of the "traditores" ultimately proved to be the true Orthodox Church. Will the same thing, ultimately, be true of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the major modernOrthodox Churches?  In short, have I, like the Donatists, ultimately separated myself from the true Church through pride?  I do not know the correct answer to this question, but would like to hear from those who are wiser and more knowledgeable than myself on this issue.

[GOCPriestMark]

It seems to me that the Donatists would not accept the repentance of those "who had 'betrayed' the Church". So it is my understanding that they are saying that the "dissenters from the 'Act'" are refusing to accept the [supposed] repentance of the MP.

[pjhatala]

The heretical teaching that the Donatists came to accept was that the sacraments of those who had "sold out" were null and void- The Donatists thought the validity of the sacrament depended on the "worth" and spiritual state of the celebrant- a notion rejected by the Church.

[GOCPriestMark]

From the foot notes of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain regarding the Regional Council of Carthage:
"The Donatists were called from a certain Donatus who appeared in Africa and who impiously thought that sinners in the Church transmitted or communicated an infection from their sins to the others, in much the same way as ailing members of the human body transmit the disease to the healthy members; and for this reason he dogmatized that sinning persons ought to be cut off from the membership and communion of the Church, and especially as regarding those Christians who for fear of death gave the holy books to be burned in the time of Diocletian. He taught his followers that when they had to commune they should hold in their hand some human bone which they had previously kissed, and afterwards commune. As against the Donatists various Synods were held also in Italy, but especially in Africa; many Saints wrote works against them, especially St. Augustine; and even St. Jerome in writing against the Luciferians wrote also against the Donatists, for those persons held the same heretical views as the Donatists."

[Pravoslavnik]

So, are ROCOR dissenters, like myself, "Donatists?" I confess that I have believed the repentance of the MP hierarchs to be insincere, and they continue to the present to praise Metropolitan Sergius and those who worked actively with the KGB in the Soviet Union. My own view about "grace" within the MP comes from the writings of St. Cyril of Kazan, who believed that he did not know whether the sacraments of the MP were full of "grace," and that only a free Council of the Church could rule on this subject. I know that I would not feel comfortable entering an MP-ROCOR Church at this time.

[GOCPriestMark]

There is no need to call a council to condemn something which has already been condemned.

Regarding St. Kirill of Kazan's view, it took him 10 years, but he eventually got enough trustworthy information to make a decision.

“In August, 1936, the Bolsheviks spread the (false) information that Metropolitan Peter had died. Immediately Metropolitan Sergius quite illegally assumed to himself Peter’s title of Metropolitan of Krutitsa. From this time, a distinct hardening in Metropolitan Cyril’s position is noticeable. Thus in March, 1937, he wrote: ‘With regard to your perplexities concerning Sergianism, I can say that the very same questions in almost the same form were addressed to me from Kazan ten years ago, and then I replied affirmatively to them, because I considered everything that Metropolitan Sergius had done as a mistake which he himself was conscious of and wished to correct. Moreover, among our ordinary flock there were many people who had not investigated what had happened, and it was impossible to demand from them a decisive and active condemnation of the events. Since then much water has flowed under the bridge. The expectations that Metropolitan Sergius would correct himself have not been justified, but there has been enough time for the formerly ignorant members of the Church, enough incitement and enough opportunity to investigate what has happened; and very many have both investigated and understood that Metropolitan Sergius is departing from that Orthodox Church which the Holy Patriarch Tikhon entrusted to us to guard, and consequently there can be no part or lot with him for the Orthodox. The recent events have finally made clear the renovationist nature of Sergianism. We cannot know whether those believers who remain in Sergianism will be saved, because the work of eternal Salvation is a work of the mercy and grace of God. But for those who see and feel the unrighteousness of Sergianism (those are your questions) it would be unforgivable craftiness to close one’s eyes to this unrighteousness and seek there for the satisfaction of one’s spiritual needs when one’s conscience doubts in the possibility of receiving such satisfaction. Everything which is not of faith is sin.... I am in fraternal communion with Metropolitan Joseph, and I gratefully esteem the fact that it was precisely with his blessing, that there was undertaken from the Petrograd diocese the first protest expressed against Metropolitan Sergius from the Petrograd diocese…,’” (The New Martyrs of Russia, Monastery Press, 2000).

Check out Monastery Press for a list of other Russian hierarchs who broke communion with Sergius the renovationist.

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear Father Mark,

Code: Select all

 I appreciate the quote from St. Cyril of Kazan, whose opinion is virtual "gospel" to me, but the questions still remain.  Have the Sergianists of the MP [i]subsequently[/i] repented?  As someone here pointed out, the Donatists were condemned by the Church for denying the repentance and grace of the traditores.  Are we ROCOR dissenters now guilty of the same schismatic errors with regard to the Sergianists?