Letter to the Holy Synod

[Despotovac]

Letter to the Holy Synod

Dear in Christ Fathers and hierarchs of The True Orthodox Church of Greece,
Bless!
After a long period of prayer and hoping for the achievement of unity, that is, communion in sacraments between the True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Russia, when with joy we saw that the historic and God-pleasing moment was at hand, we learned that the process had suddenly been stopped.
I the unworthy have been following the process from the beginning, and have taken part in its implementation. We all know that from ancient times different local Churches have adopted different positions on some questions, and in particular, there have been numerous differences with regard to the use of oikonomia and akriveia when heretics were accepted into True Church.
The Russian Church has used oikonomia for centuries in accepting Catholics and Protestants.
The most important fact for us is that the Russian Church Abroad, from which You received your Apostolic Succession, also held the principle of oikonomia in this matter. If You consider the use of oikonomia by the Synod of bishops of one local Church to be a fundamental mistake which prevents You from entering into communion with it, then You must correspondingly consider that Church to be uncanonical as well, which leads to the conclusion that the Russian Church Church that gave You Apostolic Succession was non-canonical too.
I do not understand why one hierarch persists in opposing unity in Christ with his brothers of the same faith and that a large part of Synod of bishops wavers under his pressure, which is neither well-founded nor provides any reason for stopping the process of the communion of the two Churches.
The faithful around the world are crying out for the unity of the True Orthodox, and You, beloved Fathers, by stopping the process of the establishment of communion, must accept a large part of the responsibility for that.
As a clergyman of Serbian True Orthodox Church, in my name and in the name of those who are asking me to address You with this letter, I beseech You not to stop this much-desired and God-pleasing process. It is my opinion that it would not be God-pleasing if unity with brothers of the same faith (and of the same Slavic blood for us Serbians) should be rejected without good reason. Let the basic measure for the establishment of communion be at least the same as it was when the Greek Church received her Apostolic Succession from the Russian Church Abroad.
We calmly beg You, in Your further discussions of this matter, to include our voice, as a vast cry in favour of the establishment of the communion in Christ of the Greek and Russian Churches.

Hieromonk Akakije

[Despotovac]

23 August 2009
Apodosis of the Dormition

The Right Reverend PHOTIOS
Bishop of Marathon
Secretary of the Holy Synod
Athens, Greece

Theophilestate, I kiss your sacred right hand and ask your archpastoral blessing –

Dear in Christ Despota, I humbly ask to add my voice to those concerned over the impending talks with the Russian True Orthodox Church under the presidency of Archbishop Tikhon.

This union would be extremely desirable for our witness to Orthodoxy and for our own spiritual lives. I would hate to see it prevented unnecessarily.

As I understand, the only obstacle remaining is the question of how the RTOC receives those who come to her from the Moscow Patriarchate. I should like to make a few observations:

1.The Greek and Russian Churches were in communion for centuries during which either one or the other was receiving converts from the Latins by less than what akriveia demanded, either simply by chrismation or even confession. The Latins, like the MP, lacked both the correct confession and the true typos of Baptism. The difference in practice between the Greeks and Russians, however, did not impede their being in communion with each other.

2.Until 1971, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia did not merely allow the oikonomia of receiving the Latin heretics by chrismation or confession. Chrismation or confession was their rule. Yet it was precisely during this period when our Church received her episcopacy from the ROCOR, zealously sought canonical recognition from the ROCOR synod for the secret consecrations, rejoiced to receive that recognition in 1969, and entered into communion with the ROCOR. I am not saying that I agree with the loose practice of the ROCOR during this period, but I do say that it was not an impediment to communion then, and it is not an impediment to communion now. The Russian Synod under Metropolitan Anastassy was much more “liberal” about the baptism issue than Abp Tikhon and his Synod, but they are the bishops who gave us our episcopacy, our Holy Mysteries

3.Furthermore, let us look at a more recent era: The ROCOR received clergy and entire parishes of the MP with simple repentance throughout the 1990’s! The parish priest would stand in the midst of his flock in church, read a libellos to repent of Sergianism and ecumenism, and then serve with the ROCOR bishop and commune the people. That was it. Yet during this very same period, right up to the disastrous fall of ROCOR in 2007, our Synod was still trying to revive relations with them. Let us be honest: If the ROCOR had said, for example, in 1998, “We reject the Cyprianite union; we recognize only the GOC under Abp Chrysostomos as the True Church of Greece,” would not our Synod have rejoiced to restore communion with them? Would we have said, “Oh no, Metropolitan Vitaly, we do not allow you to receive those MP priest and people by simple repentance!” ? I doubt it.

4.It does not fall within the competency of one Local Church to constrain another Local Church never to use oikonomia in such matters.

5.The RTOC does baptize infants and new converts (i.e., adults who were never even nominally baptized) by the correct form. If only their clergy can get the first generation of a family to come over from the MP, using oikonomia if necessary, they will then have these people’s children and grandchildren as their spiritual children, and they will baptize them properly. We should rejoice at this.

6.The RTOC has made an enormous step forward by rejecting Cyprianism. This shows that they are going in the direction of a stricter ecclesiology. They understand that heretics should be received by chrismation if they had the true form of baptism, and by baptism if they were not properly baptized. They are working towards making their practice stricter. Why do we make this demand now? Why crush the bent reed with our strictness, a strictness we often do not apply to our own clergy ?

7.With the fall of the ROCOR, the GOC of Greece is now the most visible, largest, and best organized opposition to ecumenism. We must take the lead in fostering unity among all the True Orthodox. This union with the RTOC would be a very large step in this direction, and we should do everything possible to make it a reality.

Please forgive my boldness. I speak so only out of love for the Church, which I know you share and appreciate. I pray that the All-Holy Spirit will guide the deliberations of our beloved Hierarchs in the upcoming Council.

Asking your archpastoral blessing and holy prayers, I remain

Your obedient servant,

Steven Allen, Presbyter

[Despotovac]

August 23 / September 5, 2009.

Your Grace,

Give the Blessing!

I am writing to you to express my concern at the position that is going to be adopted by our Holy Synod at the forthcoming Council in Athens. I know that I am a simple layman, but, as St. Theodore the Studite said, at moments of crisis in the Church’s history, it is the vital business of every rational and independently minded Christian, whatever his station in life, to take part in Church matters, and to attempt, by all lawful means possible, to protect the Church against heresy and schism.

As we all know, the situation of the True Church today is dire – probably worse than at any time in history. In previous ages, - for example, in the fourth century after the Nicene Council, - when heresy was dominant, and the True Orthodox divided, there were still obviously great saints alive whose authority was recognized even by the heretics and whose presence sustained the hopes of the faithful in the eventual triumph of the Truth. Now the situation is very different. Heresy is dominant as never before; the True Orthodox are divided as never before; and the last generally recognized saint, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, died 24 years ago. Since his death, the Russian Church Abroad has apostasized to the Moscow Patriarchate, and schisms have multiplied in both Greece and Russia.

In such a situation, two truths must be recognized: first, that the process of trying to reunite the True Orthodox – on the basis, of course, of the True Faith – must begin immediately and with a sense of urgency; and secondly, that no single True Orthodox Synod, whether Greek or Russian, now has the authority to impose its views on all the other Synods, and to say: “You must be with me if you want to be considered Orthodox”. I would add a third, less obvious, but no less important point: that every local Synod must act with a sense of responsibility, not only for its own local flock, but for Universal Orthodoxy. Narrow-minded provincialism or phyletism is always harmful, but in today’s situation it is catastrophic.

*

As I understand it, our Synod is going to put at the top of the agenda of the coming Council the question of how converts from the Moscow Patriarchate should be received into the True Church. Our Synod will insist that, since the MP has ceased to practise canonical baptism (triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity), and since some members of the MP have already been received into the Greek Church by baptism, this practice should become universal and compulsory in the Greek and Russian Churches. In other words, the Russians must abandon their practice of oikonomia in relation to the MP, or else the talks will break down. Perhaps I misunderstood you, or perhaps this is only a negotiating position which could be modified in the course of the talks. In either case, let me assume that my understanding of your position is correct for the time being.

I understand our bishops’ point of view, for I do see several advantages to the introduction of akriveia throughout the True Orthodox Church in relation to the MP. First, commonality of practice is always desirable in itself, and will avoid the kinds of misunderstandings and perplexities that arose during the period when the two Churches had different practices. Secondly, it will heighten the consciousness among the True Orthodox in Russia that ecumenism and sergianism are truly soul-destroying heresies that drive out grace from any Church they infect. Thirdly, it will heighten the same consciousness in those converts from the MP who accept to be baptized. And fourthly, it will remove one of the reproaches that the Old Ritualists have against the True Orthodox.

But I also see several disadvantages. First, it will create a firm rule where, by definition, there cannot be a firm rule that applies in all circumstances. Russia is a huge country with a great variety of peoples, beliefs and practices. The MP itself is an enormously diverse organism. It is highly unlikely that a “one size fits all” policy will serve for the salvation of all – or even, perhaps, for most. While baptism may be the right mode of entry for many people, it may turn many others – perhaps the majority – away from the True Church. A general tightening of policy allowing for more akriveia and less oikonomia than before is one thing, and probably desirable: a rejection of the possibility of oikonomia is something else.

Secondly, it may make relationships between the True Orthodox Church of Russia under Archbishop Tikhon and other “True Orthodox” groups in Russia more difficult and complicated. For the question will arise: what about those clergy in these other groups who have never received canonical baptism? My understanding is that our Greek Synod will not insist that existing True Orthodox (Tikhonite) clergy who have not received baptism need to be baptised. Good; but then what is its position with regard to the clergy of other “True Orthodox” groups: will the Council decree that they, too, must be baptised? If so, then this will imply that the unbaptised Tikhonite clergy are already in the Church while the unbaptised non-Tikhonite clergy are outside – which may not be the position that the True Orthodox Church wants to take.

Thirdly, this policy may create schisms within the True Orthodox Church of Russia. This Church has only recently rejected Cyprianism, which has led to the separation of two bishops – Dionysius and Irenaeus. I believe that Archbishop Tikhon has done a wonderful job in preparing and leading his people out of Cyprianism and other bad practices coming from the Russian Church Abroad. But he should not be pushed too far too fast: a further radical step to the “right” less than a year after the Odessa Council may lead to further schisms of clergy and laity. Other people may leave, not because they object to the policy itself, but because they see it as being imposed by a foreign Church without proper consultation with the people.

This would undoubtedly be disastrous for the True Orthodox Church as a whole. It must be the aim of all the True Orthodox Churches, of all nationalities, to help each other to increase in strength, not to provoke schisms amongst each other. Of course, if schisms are the result of differences in faith, then this cannot be helped, however regrettable it is. But the True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Russia have already established that they have no differences in faith: the only difference between them is one of discipline, akriveia versus oikonomia, with regard to one heretical jurisdiction. I maintain that even if you are right in this question, it cannot be allowed to be a cause of further schism, since it is a question of discipline and not of faith.

For I foresee the possibility of schisms whether or not you succeed in getting the Russians to accede to your demand. If you succeed, and the Russian Church, unprepared though I believe it to be, imposes universal akriveia in the reception of converts from the MP, then this may well provoke a schism in her own ranks, thereby weakening True Orthodoxy in Russia. If, on the other hand, you fail, and the Council breaks down in disharmony, you will have created a schism with the True Orthodox Church of Russia at just the moment when full union seemed within grasp – with unforeseeable consequences for the whole movement for unity among True Orthodox Christians.

This leads me to my most fundamental criticism of what I understand to be our Synod’s position: that it is attempting to impose something on the Russians which it has no right to impose. The question of how converts from the MP are to be received is a question that only the local, Russian bishops can decide. Only they know exactly what the people from the MP believe, and how they will react to this or that demand coming from the True Orthodox Church. And only they have the right to decide whether akriveia or oikonomia should be applied in a given case. Since there are no clear rules about when it is right to use oikonomia, it is impossible to decree that oikonomia can never be used with regard to a potential convert.

What would our bishops think if the Tikhonites said: “You must receive the new calendarists (or the Cyprianites, or the Matthewites) in such-and-such a way, otherwise we will have no relations with you”? I think you would dismiss such a threat out of hand, as being an illegitimate interference into the affairs of the Greek Church by another local Church. In my opinion, therefore, the Greek hierarchs may express their views on this question to the Russian hierarchs, and attempt to persuade them to accept akriveia, but they cannot lay down acceptance of akriveia as a condition of union.

The prize here is very great: the first substantial reversal of the disintegration of True Orthodoxy for many decades. If union is achieved between the True Orthodox Churches of Greece and Russia, this would create a momentum for unity, and I believe that other hierarchs would seek to join the union, and Orthodoxy throughout the world would be strengthened. I implore you, Agie Despota, do not let this historic opportunity be lost.

Asking for your holy prayers,
With love in Christ,
Vladimir

[Catherine5]

I'm so pleased to read these well-written, beautifully thought-out appeals to the Hierarchs. Terrific!

Thank you for making them available, Despotovac!

I fervently hope the resounding common sense exuded by the dedicated Hieromonk, Priest and Layman's missives will be QUICKLY heeded. And taken fast action on to move forward the stalled process to a successful completion!

There's no time to lose; I feel the urgency myself too.
Meanwhile the Agafangelites and others mock the True Orthodox for disunity, having no clear signs of even being able to work together.
Let's not let their criticisms have any element of truth!

[joasia]

These are my simple thoughts..

I think that it's a shame that any question about the proper conduct of baptism is put forth. It's a simple fact. Baptism by triple immersion, in name of the Holy Trinity, is a must (if not done previously). The Latins must do it, the Protestants must do it and anybody who is outside of Christianity. God sent St. John the Baptist, with that message. Jesus Christ allowed Himself to get baptised. It wasn't for effect. It was for a very specific reason. So why are the hierarchs being so liberal? Because they don't get it. But, those hierarchs who feel the importance of baptism, are the ones who understand the meaning of what baptism does for our souls. We are renewed in the baptismal water. We are released from the bondage imposed by our ancestors, Adam and Eve. We are given a new life, a new hope. We are given a freedom. How can someone want to deprive a person of that? I'll tell you how...because they don't have the true faith.

If someone from the MP cannot prove that they were baptised, for whatever reason, then they should accept baptism. This is the doorway to our salvation. When Christ said many will say, My Lord, but He will not recognize them, do you think it only referred to the spiritual laws? How can we say we are part of a covenant of God, if we are not immersed in it? A person who cares about being with the true Church of Christ, Orthodoxy, should not have a problem committing to the basic rule of baptism. That is God's invitation to the wedding, as depicted in His parable.

Society has become so loose that excuses are considered valid and strictness of following the narrow path is considered extreme and unloving. When is the last time, a parent here, said, "Sure go out and do whatever you want", to their child. If people, who are created by God, feel that letting their child loose will only end up in disaster, then why is it so difficult for the hierarchy, clergy and laymen to understand that God has rules for us? We are His children.

Jesus Christ explained His intensions for us, to the Apostles and they taught the successors and so on and so forth. Baptism should not be a complication, but man has made it so because, basially, he rejects God's decision in the matter.

The "Orthodox" Churches that believe in liberal economia are not following Christ's teachings. The holy fathers have plenty of explanations of baptism. Economia should be the exception, not the rule.

In Christ,
Joanna

[Cyprian]

A quote from the letter by Presbyter Steven Allen:

"6.The RTOC has made an enormous step forward by rejecting Cyprianism."

Another quote from the letter by Reader Vladimir Moss:

"This Church has only recently rejected Cyprianism, which has led to the separation of two bishops – Dionysius and Irenaeus."

This is very welcome news indeed! I don't recall seeing any official announcement, however. Can someone please provide the RTOC official rejection of Cyprianism? (which is not simply a "less strict" or more "moderate" ecclesiology as some naive persons claim, but rather is a kakodox heresy that must be anathematized as alien to the tradition of the Church.)

Any help in locating documentation of this rejection of Kyprianism by the RTOC would be greatly appreciated.

[Jean-Serge]

Personally, due to the dubious canonicity of RTOC, I'm against such union. But above all, I'm highly disappointed that negociations have been led without informing the laity, without making all documents public for everyone. If laity is the Royal People, how can it play its role if it does not know at all what's happening. How do bishops want to receive this unification if it is not informed at all? For example, I would be very pleased to read the whole documents and in particular those about RTOC canonicity because for me, until I have new elements, RTOC is simply a schism from ROCIE-V and an uncanonical parasynagog. Other people think the same and we cannot be convinced if we're wrong without being given the documents...

By the way, I'm not surprised by the problem raised by this question. I heard 3 years ago about the possibility of communion with RTOC and then learnt that if this happenned this threatened the GOC-CII unity. I was told that the Georgian GOC parishes did not like this. There is no need in threatening the internal unity simply to unite with RTOC. There is no need to hurry. The best thing would be to put as a condition prior to any union with the Russians that they first unite themselves. Why should we enter in communion with RTOC (uncanonical for me) and not ROAC, Seraphimogennadites and so on?