This is an open letter by Bp Akakije in response to the above. JG
Dear in Christ Sister Marina,
I have heard about your decision to leave your Russian Church (as I considered you members of the Russian Church who happened to live on Serbian territory) and join the Greek Church. Even though I consider the Greek Church (whose first hierarch is Archbishop Kallinikos) valid and canonical, this cannot but bring a sad thought that Russians, without any serious reason (which could only be the matter of the canonicity or validity of one church, that is, the uncanonicity and invalidity of another), are abandoning their caring Mother and going to an unknown stepmother.
When in the mid 90s Russian True Orthodoxy experienced the crisis with Cyprianism and the tendency of drawing nearer to the MP, it was completely understandable and praiseworthy to seek temporary refuge under the wing of the sister Greek Church. Today, however, when a completely valid and canonical Russian True Orthodox Church exists, the act of joining an alien jurisdiction can be regarded as unjust, first of all, but also as a sort of religious eccentrism and the lack of even the slightest national awareness, that is, loyalty to the ideals of Holy Russia, which demands above all loyalty to Russian Orthodoxy.
Perhaps as a justification for your action you will bring forward errors which affect the canonicity of the Russian TOC; but you should know that every alleged error is no greater nor more serious than the errors which one can find in the historical course of the Greek Synod of the GOC from its beginnings to this very day. I repeat, it is without question that the GOC today in the context of True Orthodoxy is a valid and canonical jurisdiction, BUT with much economy and, as we Serbs say, “looking through your fingers” (turning a blind eye).
The GOC Greek Synod which today has stabilized and crystalized to a fair extent carries the baggage of a not-so-glorious history of wavering in the confession of the faith and a multitude of errors. The history of the GOC, as I have said, from eleven years of having no episcopacy, then the wavering of its very founder Chrysostomos of Florina in matters of confession of the faith which caused its first schism and its being left without bishops, to the uncanonical procurement of the hirotonia of Akakios (Pappas) the Elder, along with many schisms which to this day remain unclear, has not exactly flowed a straight, peaceful course. Of course, the GOC possesses the recognition of the Russian Church Abroad which brought all these disorders (and that, very serious ones) to order, on the basis of which the GOC today can be considered a valid and canonical synod. Still, after this recognition, GOC went through the great Antonios-Kallistos schism (1979) whose inciters were not only uncanonically ordained in the heat of the schism, but all of the current synod of the GOC has its origins in them, that is, from those uncanonical ordinations. Even today’s first hierarch of the GOC Arcbishop Kallinikos received his episcopal rank in that above all conspiratorial and schismatic action of a few against a canonical and lawful First Hierarch, Arcbishop Auxentios. After the falling apart of the GOC in 1980, both sides, the Antonios-Kallistos and Auxentios groups sought recognition from the holy Synod of ROCOR. Neither sides were granted recognition. The ROCOR Synod, with St Philaret at its head, in reply to their petition, in its Resolution sought that all dubious bishops (all who were ordained in schism) be removed and that the remaining bishops unite. At the end of their Resolution the Hierarchical Synod of ROCOR said that they would carefully watch what was going on so that the Greek GOC could establish canonical order whose establishment would make possible the renewal of communion, and thus the recognition of the GOC’s canonicity. Unfortunately, the bishops ordained in schism were never removed and thus the canonical order was never established in fullness. The bishops ordained in schism were the basis of the creation of a new Greek GOC Synod whose first hierarch became the respected Metropolitain Chrysostomos (Kiousis) who did not take part in this schism and whose appearance at the head of the newly-created Synod bettered its reputation. I would rather not speak too much of the current not-so-great internal state of the Greek GOC as it is a public “secret.” Many clergymen of the GOC in Greece and the diaspora do not hold to the official confession of faith that the New Calenderists do not possess the Holy Mysteries, and they show this in their actions by communing New Calenderists and commemorating them in the proskomedia. I would rather not mention to you the other internal failings of the GOC which I personally witnessed over the years of living and spending time in Greece, as this would make my letter in to the shape of judging and gossiping about someone that I love, respect, and accept as the canonical Greek Church, and for the one you love you cover and condescend to his failings and mistakes which of course do not enter into the realm of confession of faith and serious violations of canonical order. Every contemporary True Orthodox Church (I do not count official churches, as they have fallen, that is, they have ceased to be Orthodox), that is, church jurisdictions or Synods in the history of their establishment, growth and current existence have their faults, canonical failings and errors. Unfortunately, the majority of the various True Orthodox jurisdictions are characterized by very serious canonical errors which cannot be easily tolerated as they demand the intervention of some canonical jurisdictions – the intervention of recognition or correction of canonical errors. Among all of them, two jurisdictions stand out – ie, two True Orthodox Synods, and those are the Russian and Greek TOC which recognize each other as canonically valid, and it is only a question of time when they, with the help of God, will go into complete Eucharistic union.
On the other hand, the suspicions which are being spread by ill-intentioned people,( and that, unfortunately, most often among Russians), which throw doubts on the canonicity of the Russian TOC Synod are unjust, especially when they compare Her canonicity with the Greek GOC.
The renewal of a canonical hierarchy on Russian territory (the ex USSR), which was lost during the difficult period of persecution was begun by the ROCOR, by God’s providence, under the guidance of St. Philaret. This was actually the greatest historical mission of ROCOR itself. By the decision of the Hierarchical Sobor of the ROCOR in 1982 which at that time was presided over by St. Philaret, Archimadrite Lazar Zhurbenko was consecrated a bishop secretly in Moscow. Later, in 1990, also by conciliar decision of the Hierarchical Sobor of the ROCOR another bishop was ordained for the needs of the rebirth and ruling of the Russian True Orthodox Church, Hieromonk Benjamin (Rusalenko). Later, when in 2001, the monumental ROCOR fell apart into two groups, the uniate bishops and the zealous, Bishops Lazar and Benjamin were the only fully valid, lawful eparchial bishops who supported Metropolitan Vitaly and only in union with them could Metropolitan Vitaly perform canonically correct hirotonias of new bishops who would renew the episcopacy of the Church Abroad. If there had not been terrible intrigue surrounding the aged Metropolitan (Zhukov, Tselischev and others), that would have happened. In 2002 it became perfectly clear that this desirable and more than necessary union between the aforementioned hierarchs from Russia with the First Hierarch wouldn’t happen as a result of the intrigue and deceiving of the elderly Metropolitan on the part of his circle in Mansonville. Furthermore, the “Mansonville circle” at that time, along with keeping the elderly Metropolitan in isolation, took an openly schismatic course of confrontation with the Russian hierarchs. Nonetheless, Archbishop Lazar miraculously succeeded at one moment through a representative to get into written contact with Metropolitan Vitaly, and on that occasion the elderly Metropolitan sent his written blessing that Bishops Lazar and Benjamin begin to consecrate new bishops and to found a hierarchical Synod in Russia. This blessing of the first hierarch and its realization were the expression of agreement of the last three remaining lawful ruling (eparchial) hierarchs: Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Benjamin. From this short but essential look over the history of the canonicity of the Russian TOC their spotlessness in the matter of canonicity is clear.
The “Mansonville” consecrations in Met. Vitaly’s name which began with the single-handed consecration of Archimadrite Sergius (Kundyakov) which was performed by the Vicar (vicar, not ruling-eparchial) Bishop Barnabas were obviously uncanonical: they were done hastily and were not Sobornally considered, nor were any of the ruling (eparchial) bishops informed of them, much less give their consent. These uncanonical consecrations were blessed by Metropolitan Vitaly under the great pressure of his schismatically-inclined circle. With these consecrations the manipulation of the elderly Metropolitan reached its height, for the matter was guilefully represented to him as if the Russian hierarchs Lazar and Benjamin did not exist at all. The “Mansonville” Synod, on the part of its creators and ideaologues who misused the name of Metropolitan Vitaly already at the very beginning enlisted itself in the ranks of the uncanonical True Orthodox Synods, and later confirmed this in deed with numerous splits.
Here I would stop to make one conclusion. It is extremely strange that your spouse Alexandar (Shurik), for whom, according to his own words, his only Orthodox authority is his father in the flesh Fr. Constantine (very much respected on our part), did not resolve to join the jurisdiction of the “Mansonville” Synod which his father in the flesh belongs to. It is also strange that Batushka Constantine at one time advised Alexander to join the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom (Kiousis), and from when Alexander left the GOC and joined the Russian TOC his father Batushka Constantine showed obvious dissatisfaction, which is most likely the main reason for your decision to leave the Russian TOC and join the Greek Church. This is even stranger if we bring to mind the advice of the ever-memorable Archbishop Chrysotomos himself directed to Batushka Constantine through Alexander to join the jurisdiction of the Russian TOC under Archbishop Tikhon as that is the only canonical Russian Church.
Taking all of this into account, I stand by the affirmation that for an Orthodox Russian, in the context given, to leave the Russian Church and be under Greeks is thoughtless and extremely unjust. To seek (dig up), scrutinize and condemn some sort of errors of one’s own Mother with a powerful microscope, and to forget, pass over, and condescend to the much greater errors of a foreign stepmother is a sin similar to that from the scriptural parable of the mote and the beam. In this case it is much worse, however: in the scriptural parable the sinner justifies his own sins, while he judges others as more sinful, whereas in this context of churches, by some incomprehensible mindlessness someone unjustly sees in his church a heap of errors which give his conscience no peace, while in others he does not see anything that would disturb his Orthodox conscience.
Likewise, there is also the matter of an unjustified betrayal of holy Russian Orthodoxy. This betrayal is all the greater when one perceives the arrogant, overbearing stance of Greek nationalism towards us Slavs. That stance is the stance of a negligible minority in the Greek Church, but today, after the repose of the ever-memorable Archbishop Chrysostomos (Kiousis), this stance blows in the Greek Church’s sails and steers Her course. Among other things, do not forget that on an official level the GOC does not recognize the Holy Tsar Martyr Nicholas and St. John of Shanghai the Wonderworker as saints.
The time when it was justified for a Russian or Serb to be under the Greeks has passed. Today such a decision can only be interpreted as the result of some personal passion or some kind of religious eccentrism which can be noticed in some of the “Zarubezniki” and typically takes the shape of extreme distrust of anything coming from Russia. Is this not similar to that sentence from Scripture, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” (Acts 10:38)
I would like to finish this letter with the conclusion that your decision is not bad, of course, but it is unjust. It is not bad, because as I have already said the GOC is a canonical, salvific Church, and that one can be saved in it, which is the most important after all. Still, there exists one large BUT connected with the unjust action towards your Mother Church. You are not Englishmen, Americans or Singaporeans so that it is all the same to you what Local Church you join in order to obtain salvation. You are Russians, you belong to the Russian Orthodox Church in which you were baptized, in which you communed from your youth, in which all of your ancestors worked for their salvation. In this Church are your roots, your native Russian saints. For that Church many, many Russian sons struggled, fought and spilled their blood from the distant past to this very day of the Russian catacombs and Russian diaspora. For what reason was the supernatural effort of the founders of the Russian Church Abroad along with all of those who helped them that She exist throughout the entire world as the greatest comfort of the Russian souls which found themselves in bitter exile, scattered throughout the wide world? Wouldn’t it have been easier for the Russian emigrants to melt into the various local Churches? From whence is your indifference and arrogance towards the podvig of your fathers who took on the superhuman toil to preserve the Russian Church wherever She found herself, in whatever conditions, whether it be in the bloody ones of Soviet persecution or in alien lands far from one’s fatherland, where without the Russian Church Abroad it would have been impossible to preserve HOLY RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY which was and remains for many other nations an unquenchable beacon of salvation. Be, therefore, reasonable, sober and above all, just. If you are already prepared to swallow all the failings of the Greek GOC (and for the Greek GOC one must truly squelch one’s Orthodox conscience), then condescend as well to the failings of your dearest Mother Russian Church. Be loyal to Russian True Orthodoxy and do not pay heed to your current personal temptations, dissatisfaction or frustrations. Pay no heed to the various troublemakers and conspirators who delude themselves and others around them.
All of this, dear Sister Marina, I do not write as a rebuke or as a command, or even as advice. The purpose was that these words fall like Scriptural seeds on the field of your conscience, and we will pray to God that these seeds take root in the fruitful earth of your Russian Orthodox justice-loving soul, and that, perhaps if not at this time, but at some time they break through the shell of prejudice and religious eccentrism and with the rising sun of an awakened conscience sprout LOYALTY TO RUSSIAN ORTHODOXY, both within you and your pious children, that they may grow up and bear good fruit for their people, their fatherland and their Mother Russian Church.
Dormition 2013
In Christ, Your Sincere Well-Wisher
+Bp. Akakije
PS
I wrote this letter a few days before the feast of Dormition, not having yet received your email. After reading it, however, I did not find anything new which would change the content of my original letter as I have held to such thinking even before you moved near our mountain monastery in Serbia. When we in Serbia at last established canonical order with the help of the sister Russian TOC, I was glad that your family finally, through us, returned beneath the Motherly wing of your Russian Church. As your superficial sentence about uncanonical departure from “our canonical bishop without a canonical release” rather stuck out to me, perhaps I would, as an addition to this letter, only direct you to a few links from our Church site which are concerned with the theme of the canonicity of our action of separation from the temporary hierarchical omophorion of the sister Greek Church of the GOC and return to the fullness of canonical order of church life in Serbia, that is, on the canonical territory of the jurisdiction of the Serbian Church.
In short, we True Orthodox Christians in Serbia, as the faithful children of the Serbian Church were not able to accept that Serbia be considered by the Greek GOC Church as an un-evangelized, missionary territory of the Greek Church, and on the basis of such affirmations the Greek bishops consider themselves the untouchable “canonical bishops” of Serbia. Such an intrusive, canonically unjust and unnatural state over such a long period was impermissible as the canons clearly indicate the time period for the administrating bishop who is placed temporarily in rule of a widowed eparchy with the obligation that during that strictly limited period he will, without procrastinating, ordain a bishop for the widowed eparchy.
This letter was not planned for the public, but as Fr. Augustine has made your letter such, I am forced to make my response public as well.
