The Demise of ROCOR, the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel, and the Ecclesiology of the Cyprianite “Synod in Resistance”
[PART 2]
Further Reflections
I would like to continue exploring this historical subject of the recent destruction of the old Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, in order to derive thereby a few lessons for the present course of True Orthodoxy. There are three sections to the present article, followed by a conclusion: A. The three “camps” in the old ROCOR and their interaction, B. The introduction of Cyprianism as a tool of destruction, C. The “royal path” concept and its purported relationship to ecclesiology, D. A proposal to the ROCOR-A.
A. There were three “camps” in the old ROCOR, and their interaction can be studied to understand the fall of 2007.
These three "camps" were:
1. The "Left Wing" – This group never saw much wrong with the MP and World Orthodoxy, but admitted that it was imprudent to deal directly with the MP as long as the old-style, violent communists were in power, and inarticulately perceived that ecumenism was not in good taste but certainly not an impediment to concelebrating with the "Orthodox" involved in it, as long as they were not the non-ROCOR Russian groups, with whom there was a temporary, purely political obstacle to concelebration.
As soon as "the Wall came down," these clerics simply panted to come in out of the cold and be warmed by the glow of Official-ness. There was a big party going on, and they did not want to be left out of it. If being with the MP meant also being with the Antiochians, who are in communion with the Monophysites, or being with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which believes above all in radical environmentalism and the sacraments of the Pope, or being with the OCA, where it is permitted to venerate Francis of Assisi, deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and question the Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos, well, so what? This feels so good, how could it be bad?
Unlike the “Right Wing,” the “Left Wing” never faltered in their vision for the future of ROCOR, which may be summarized in three points:
a. The historical national institutions of “World Orthodoxy” are necessarily, inalienably, and forever the CHURCH, regardless of their participation in ecumenism or any other -ism. No matter what heresies they preach, to be separate from them is to be outside the Church
b. We are unavoidably separated outwardly from the Moscow Patriarchate- and by extension World Orthodoxy - due only to the temporary barrier of Cold War politics, which is completely extrinsic to any concerns related to the confession of the Faith.
c. When these purely extrinsic political circumstances change, if we do not join the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy, we will be outside the Church.
2. The "Right Wing" – These men saw clearly that the MP was no longer an unwilling captive, but rather a new entity substantially different from the pitiful, captive compromisers of the pre-World War II era: a sacrilegious, alchemical transmogrification, a surreal caricature of a Church, combining Orthodox with non-Orthodox, even occult, elements, and completely subservient to the domestic and foreign policy goals of whatever demoniacally criminal element was in power in Moscow - communist, neo-communist, fascist, neo-capitalist, anti-western, pro-western, nationalist, internationalist, whatever.
This "Right Wing" also saw clearly that the rest of "official" state church "Orthodoxy" was likewise subservient to apostate, militantly post-Christian criminal elements, whether on the "Western" or "Eastern" side of the artificial Cold War dichotomy, and that its leaders were no longer Christians in any meaningful sense. Apostates, utterly overturned inwardly in their philosophical foundations and thought processes, being either cynical criminals (like Patriarch Bartholomew, for example) or pitiful dupes subject to profound spiritual delusion (like the late Patriarch Paul of Serbia, for example), these patriarchs and leading hierarchs saw (and to this day, see) no contradiction between making public Orthodox and anti-Orthodox statements on a regular, alternating basis, decrying ecumenism one day and praying with heretics (or, for that matter, non-Christians) the next, and, like the MP, were (and to this day, are) in the process of creating an attractive, surreal neo-Orthodoxy - beautiful services, Byzantine choir conferences, educational and publishing efforts, excellent iconography, beautiful coffee-table books, aggressively advertised "holy elders", etc. - an "Orthodoxy" that is simultaneously beautiful outwardly and empty inwardly, slavishly content to be one more option on the cafeteria menu of Traditional World Religions and crafted precisely to fit neatly into the Department of Legalized Cults in the New World Order.
The ROCA "Right Wing", gradually recognizing all this, proceeded in the 1960's from making individual protests to the "World Orthodox" (the "Sorrowful Epistles") and discouraging concelebration with them, to overt and public synodal action:
a. The recognition in 1969 of the Auxentios Synod, which was at least an implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the new calendar Greek Church,
b. The 1970 Ukase replacing chrismation with baptism as the normal method for receiving Roman Catholic and Protestant converts, which was a direct challenge to the ecclesiological presuppositions of ecumenism,
c. The 1971 cheirothesia for the Matthewites, which further intensified the challenge to the Greek new calendarists, and finally, but, as we shall see, ineffectively,
d. the 1983 Anathema.
In 1974, at the IIIrd All Diaspora Sobor held at Jordanville, though the "Right Wing" wanted to issue a definitive condemnation of the ecumenists, when they were threatened with schism by Anthony of Geneva and the "Left Wing," they settled for a statement that left open the possibility that the World Orthodox might be outside the Church, but abdicated the responsibility for the definitive statement of this reality to a future ecumenical council. This laid the groundwork for the 1986 Nativity Encyclical of Metropolitan Vitaly, which effectively voided the 1983 Anathema, and, finally, for the 1994 decision regarding Cyprianism, which moved the ROCOR from the 1974 position that "we do not know if the ecumenists are outside the Church" to the position that "we do know that the ecumenists are inside the Church."
I propose that the high water mark of the Right Wing's influence was, therefore, not 1983, but rather the period immediately before the 1974 Sobor. From that point on, it was all downhill, despite the 1983 Anathema, because the 1974 statement denied the authority of a Local Synod to anathematize anyone, and it was never subsequently overturned. From 1974 to the repose of Met. Philaret in late 1985, they were fighting a rearguard action. The 1983 Anathema proclaims the truth, and its spiritual effect cannot be doubted: Those who fall under it are in fact anathematized, whether they believe so or not. But as a disciplinary and didactic tool to prevent the apostasy of most of the ROCOR, the Anathema failed, because the interpretation put on it by the 1986 Nativity Encyclical prevented the ROCOR authorities from applying it to those who actually were guilty of the heresy which the anathema condemned. This interpretation, however, cannot be blamed solely on its author, Metropolitan Vitaly, for his approach found a precedent in the 1974 declaration.
When Bishop Gregory and Abp. Antony of Los Angeles were staying at the home of a long-time ROCOR clergyman while attending the 1992 North American clergy conference in Cleveland, they both told their host that soon the Russian Church Abroad would be no more, that, in essence, the fight was already lost. They knew that the 1992 conference was the first open move in the operation to brainwash the clergy into the MP union. This phase of the operation was now possible, because after the removal of the Met. Philaret/Grabbe administration in January of 1986, the fight over matters of principle was already lost, and it became simply a matter of time, of working out the details. The final rearguard action was really in the years 1974 through 1985. The seeming rearguard action of the Met. Vitaly administration was, in retrospect, an exercise in futility, for two conditions necessary to a real opposition by the Right Wing had been destroyed by the removal of an effective leader at the synodal administration in the person of Bishop Gregory, in January 1986, and by the crippling of the 1983 Anathema achieved in the Nativity Encyclical of December (OS) 1986.
It is not for us to judge the great men of this “Right Wing,” who number among themselves at least one saint. It behooves us, however, to recognize that this idea that only an ecumenical council can declare heretics to be heretics is a strait-jacket that prevented the ROCOR from defending itself and will do the same to anyone who adopts it.
3. The "Broad Mainstream" - This was by far the largest of the three groups. It consisted of hierarchs, clergy, and laity who instinctively knew that the MP was internally very bad - not just "captive and oppressed" - and that they wanted to have nothing to do with it, but would not or could not articulate why. The OCA and Evlogians were the "Russians we are not with" and therefore outside the pale. As for the rest of World Orthodoxy, this was really not a concern, since they were not Russians, anyway, and therefore if Met. Philaret says do not serve with them, well, it's not that big a loss, though we rather like the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates, and it's nice to serve with them sometimes, because that makes us feel better - more "official." As long as we have beautiful services and our priests are sweet and old-fashioned and pious, we are happy. There is no big rush to join the MP or World Orthodoxy officially, though we are not sure why we shouldn't, if push comes to shove. "Our Church" (nasha tserkov) is guaranteed to go on forever (as Met. Vitaly once asserted in an encyclical), and nothing can really harm it.
In other words, these were people who were instinctively pious, patriotically Russian, anti-communist, and old-fashioned (all excellent and praiseworthy traits) but did not see the larger Church situation or understand patristic ecclesiology. "The bells are ringing, the pop is serving, the choir is singing...it MUST be Church!" They had no ideological foundation on the basis of which either to accept or to oppose joining World Orthodoxy, and they felt no need to do either. When the time came for the young, well funded, growing, consistent, articulate, well organized, and energized Left Wing to make its Big Push in the 1990's and post-2000's, and the elderly, under-funded, dwindling, inconsistent, inarticulate, disorganized, and dispirited Right Wing could not match the Left's propaganda operation, the Broad Mainstream was easy prey.
B. The Cyprianite Union was part of the KGB operation for the destruction of the Russian Church Abroad.
Only a naive person would sincerely deny that the MP "union" was the result of a systematic infiltration and subversion operation by the Russian government, whose covert phase had lasted for decades, leading up to the public phase begun with the propaganda surrounding the Millenium of the Baptism of Rus' celebrations in 1988. I wonder if even leading MP apologists such as the noted archpriests John Shaw (now Bishop Jerome of Manhattan) or Alexander Lebedev would even take the trouble to deny this any longer, though no doubt they would claim that it was, nonetheless, the work of the Holy Spirit, with Putin in the role of St. Constantine or St. Vladimir. Furthermore, only an uninformed person would deny that Archbishop Mark and Archbishop Laurus were the leading agents of this operation at the open, hierarchical level.
It so happens that - mirabile dictu - the same Archbishop Mark and Archbishop Laurus were the chief engineers of the union with the Synod in Resistance. Since their brief, their assignment, their final goal, their brass ring, had always been, long prior to 1994, capitulation to the MP, they would not have engineered the SiR union if it had not served this final goal, this consummation devoutly to be desired above all others, submission to the Moscow Patriarchate. How did the SiR union fit into their plans?
1. It finally shut the door on reconciliation with the actual synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.
2. It moved the official ROCOR position from "we do not know if the ecumenists are inside or outside the Church" (the 1974 position) to "we do know that the ecumenists are inside the Church" (the new, 1994 position). This is not insignificant. It is a fundamental change, a conclusive move to the left: A miracle of terminological legerdemain has translated notorious heretics from unmapped and perilous hinterlands to the secure bosom of the Church. Abp. Mark, his helpers like Fr. Alexander Lebedev, et al, are intelligent men who understood this perfectly. The Cyprianite ecclesiology was a powerful idea which Abp. Mark and his fellow travelers could conveniently “buy off the shelf readymade” to use as a propaganda tool in their brainwashing campaign, and then throw away the “package” (the Synod in Resistance) when the “product” was used up.
Once this new official position was in place, and the only remaining objections to inter-communion were the complicated, legalistic, and - to the ordinary person - incomprehensible arguments put forth in the Cyprianite position papers, it was child's play to move the Broad Mainstream and a critical mass of the Right Wing from "we know the ecumenists are in the Church" to "therefore we should be in communion with them."
A conversation I had with Fr. Alexey Young in the late 1990's illustrates this. Fr. Alexey, a well-known writer and missionary, was my co-pastor at All Saints of Russia Church in Denver. At that time, of course, we were having many discussions about the question of dialogue and ultimately inter-communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. Finally, one day, Fr. Alexey turned to me and said, “Our own bishops have now stated that they have grace; how can we not be in communion with them?” I had to admit that it was a very good question.
Previously, as a loyal (and perhaps the best known) disciple of Fr. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Alexey Young had adhered to the position of the “Royal Path” taught by Fr. Seraphim – that the True Orthodox hierarchs do not know whether the ecumenists are inside or outside the Church. But now, post-1994, there was a new position to the Left of the Royal Path, which Fr. Alexey was bound to follow in obedience to a synodal definition of his bishops: We know that, even if they are heretics, they are in the Church.
C. The “Royal Path” concept
The apologists for today's ROCOR-A synod do not really believe in the Cyprianite ecclesiology. What they really believe in is this “Royal Path” approach, which was popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose in the 1970's. Where did the Royal Path metaphor originate?
The image of the "Royal Path" is first spoken of in the Second Conference of Abba Moses, found in the Conferences of St. John Cassian, regarding Discretion (diakrisis). Abba Moses speaks of the royal path of moderation in ascetical exercise - fasting, vigils, etc. The Fathers did not apply this moral concept (pan metron ariston – everything in moderation) to the dogmas, because Truth, unlike prudent ascetical activity, is not a mean between extremes. St. Mark of Ephesus, in an epistle to Gennadius Scholarius, stated the truth of this matter with his characteristic clarity: “There is no middle way in matters of faith.”
To apply this to our times: Orthodoxy is not a mean between ecumenism and dogmatic Truth, nor is there a mean between being in the Church and being out of the Church. There is no mean between being a bishop and not being a bishop. There is no “middle state” lying in the center of the Royal Path between being a Christian and being a heretic. Therefore we cannot apply the “Royal Path” metaphor to a supposed knowledge of a “middle state” such as the “ailing in faith” category in the Cyprianite ecclesiology.
The decision by bishops as to when publicly to declare certain men heretics and to cut them off from the communion of the Church, is, however, not a dogma, but a prudential decision based on knowledge of the dogmas and knowledge of the facts involved in the case. We may disagree with the contention of the old ROCOR that it was prudent not to make a clear declaration of the status of World Orthodoxy, but we must admit that it is a prudential judgment, and therefore the Royal Path metaphor can apply. The belief, however, that only an ecumenical council has the competence to make such a judgment is not “moderate”; it is simply mistaken. Furthermore, using the “Royal Path” concept to justify never changing one's position on the matter of cutting off heretics is a misuse of the concept, because prudential judgments are, of their nature, subject to recurring review in light of new evidence.
In his landmark essay, “Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church?” the notable confessor of the Faith and professor of theology I.M. Andreyev concluded that there was, in his time, compelling evidence that the MP was graceless, but that the “time had not yet come” to declare this. He wrote this in 1948. Come, let us be honest. It is now 2010, and the MP has now fully revealed itself, as has all of “World Orthodoxy.” Do ROCOR-A still insist that they are staying on the “Royal Path” by refusing to adjust their evaluation of our situation in light of all the new evidence that has come our way since 1948? To insist stubbornly on such a course seems rather immoderate.
D. A proposal to ROCOR-A
In light of everything said above, I propose that the leadership of ROCOR-A take three subjects under serious consideration:
1. The theory of Met. Cyprian is not the “historic position of the Church Abroad” prior to 1994, and therefore the statement of the 1994 Sobor, that the ROCOR and the SiR had an identical ecclesiological understanding, is incorrect and should be re-evaluated. The position of the Church Abroad, historically, was articulated clearly by I.M. Andreyev in the above-mentioned 1948 article on the presence of grace in the Soviet church. (Andreyev's article, in light of events since 1948, can also be applied appropriately to all of what is called “World Orthodoxy.”) Professor Andreyev concludes that there is compelling evidence that the church body under the Soviet hierarchy is not the Church of Christ, and that it does not administer the true Holy Mysteries. As a matter of prudence, however, he cautions against making a public proclamation of this reality, pending further events. He does not, however, preclude the possibility that the Soviet church is, in fact, apart from any proclamation, already outside the Church.
The stance is one of a private conviction accompanied by a publicly held uncertainty dictated by prudence.
I experienced this in action, many times, in the Russian Church Abroad, in the presence of the older hierarchs and clergy: both the private conviction (that the sergianists and ecumenists were outside the Church) and the publicly held uncertainty dictated by prudence. One memorable example took place at the 1992 North American clergy conference in Cleveland, attended by a very large and representative portion of the clergy of the American and Canadian dioceses, at which the pro-MP forces, still covert but already in action, were stirring up discussion about “grace in the MP.” Finally, Metropolitan Vitaly became exasperated, stood up, and, slowly pointing his finger around the room, said, Each of you in this room knows, deep down in his heart, that there is no grace in the Moscow Patriarchate. It was a stunning moment; each man in the room must have known in his heart that this was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking prophetically, not so much through Vladika as our first hierarch, but through Vladika as a prophetic elder, speaking heart to heart and man to man. At that moment, everyone in the room was convicted, judged, in the arena of conscience. Then he sat down.
This is the same Metropolitan Vitaly who wrote, in December of 1986, that the Russian Church Abroad does not take it upon herself to proclaim anyone not under her direct jurisdiction, outside the Church. Private conviction, public uncertainty.
This is not, however, the position of the Synod in Resistance. They claim to have positive knowledge that today's heretical hierarchs are, in fact, still within the saving enclosure of the Church, retain the grace of genuine episcopal consecration, and validly administer the Holy Mysteries. They teach that if one does not believe this, one is not only imprudent but erring in Faith! They proclaim this publicly. This is obviously not the position described above.
To identify the positive position of the SiR with the cautious, uncertain “Royal Path” attitude held by the Russian Church Abroad prior to 1994 is a mistake. Until 1994, whether or not the ecumenist heretics had already left the Church was an open question. After 1994, it was settled: the heretics remain in the Church. From this point on, the ecclesiological phronema of the ROCOR clergy and faithful who previously might have resisted the MP union degenerated rapidly, and this contributed to the sad outcome with which we are all too familiar.
2. The “Royal Path” image is a metaphor for an approach to dealing with matters of prudence, not a position on matters of knowledge. As stated above, we find the “Royal Path” image in the Fathers when they are dealing with matters requiring diakrisis, discretion. It is an approach to making practical decisions, not a fixed epistemological position or a final disciplinary judgment.
The Russian Church Abroad, then, historically, even during most of Met. Philaret's reign, found it imprudent – whether correctly or incorrectly - to declare that today's heretics are outside the Church, but did not preclude the possibility that they are, indeed, already ontologically outside the Church.
Prudence and discretion, however, at some point, may dictate that, on the basis of further evidence, and in light of practical needs, one should change one's publicly stated position on a matter of knowledge and render a new practical judgment. Is this not abundantly illustrated by countless examples from sacred and secular history, and indeed by the experience of our daily lives?
I ask the leadership of ROCOR-A to apply their diakrisis to this proposal: The evidence accumulated in the decades since the 1974 Sobor indicates that it is, in fact, prudent, that is, completely within the Royal Path, to state that the heretics are, in fact, simply outside the Church.
3. The idea that only an ecumenical council can cut off heretics from the Church is a mistake. Today's True Orthodox and the Russian Church in particular, should not be burdened with the 1974 All Diaspora Sobor's decision to leave this matter to an ecumenical council. The mistake is understandable, and indeed we sympathize with and admire those who made it, who were certainly men of greater spiritual stature than we, but it was, nonetheless, a mistake. The history of the Church contains examples of local councils and even individual Fathers who cut off heretics from the communion of the Church. Discretion – diakrisis, the authentic walking on the Royal Path - dictates that, for the salvation of souls, our local Church authorities make a public statement that today's heretics are, in fact, outside the Church.
Priest Steven Allen
Church of St. Spyridon
Detroit, Michigan USA
15 August 2010 OS
Feast of the Dormition