St. Herman’s Guardian – Archimandrite Gerasim Schmaltz

[Barbara]

Wh-a-a-t ? Which True Orthodox would have so little discernment as that ?

Might as well glorify EVERY conscientious Matushka !
It demeans the concept of a Saint to glorify a regular person who showed average virtues. A Saint is somebody who is extraordinary, not ordinary.
Thus, with the grace of God, that one can probably perform miracles that are CLEAR< not fuzzy or open to dispute like so many cases that are thrown around today, especially in the Catholic Church and among World Orthodox jurisdictions.

[Cyprian]

Some True Orthodox are divided on Matushka Olga. At the time that she reposed in 1979 the OCA was still entirely on the Old Calendar. They first introduced the New Calendar in some of their parishes in 1982.

Which specific "True Orthodox" venerate Matushka Olga as a saint? Don't canonical rules prohibit recognizing as saints those who are in schism and out of fellowship with the Church?

Merely retaining use of the old calendar does not necessarily make one Orthodox, or prevent one from being in heresy or schism from the Church.

The Papists remained on the old calendar until 1582, despite the fact that they had been in schism and heresy for centuries.

The so-called Moscow Patriarchate still maintains use of the old calendar, but they are Sergianists and ecumenists (and also war mongers) and are obviously not Orthodox.

So, I don't see that it makes all that much difference that the OCA was mostly still on the old calendar in 1979, when this Matushka Olga reposed. The OCA was still schismatic and Sergianist.

If I'm not mistaken, there were examples of some new calendarist parishes in the "OCA" dating back to the 1960s, but I believe the OCA did not begin making use of the new calendar obligatory until the 1980s, and even allowed for some exceptions in some dioceses.

For example, around 1960, the OCA (then still called the "Russian-American Metropolia") received the Romanian Valerian (Trifa) of Detroit along with his diocese, which was on the new calendar.

Also, this:
https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2011/12 ... n-america/

UPDATE: In the comments below, William Kosar has pinned down when the Metropolia/OCA began making the switch from the Old to the New Calendar. William writes, “After a little research, it was at the Thirteenth Sobor of November 14-16, 1967 that the decision was made permitting parishes, upon approval of their diocesan bishop, to use the new calendar.” The 1982 date that I cited seems to refer to when then-Bishop Herman Swaiko of Eastern PA forced all the parishes in his diocese to adopt the New Calendar. Up to that point, it appears that parishes could choose. See the comments for more on how the process of choosing worked.

[Barbara]

Good points !

[haralampopoulosjc]

@Cyprian Do you think that the New Calendar parishes that were in ROCOR had grace? Because ROCOR had New Calendar parishes before the OCA ever did.

[Cyprian]

@Cyprian Do you think that the New Calendar parishes that were in ROCOR had grace? Because ROCOR had New Calendar parishes before the OCA ever did.

I'm fully aware the ROCOR had some missions in Europe (French, Dutch, Bulgarian etc.) who were allowed (for a time) to continue their liturgical use of the new calendar. I'm also aware of Archbishop Teofil (Ionescu), who was also on the new calendar.

I think you did not quite understand the point I was making.

The point is, the ROCOR was neither in schism, nor in heresy, and was not Sergianist nor renovationist.

Back in 1979, the OCA was all of those things, and still is, to this very day.

The argument I'm making, is that the OCA's use of the old calendar in 1979 (with minor exceptions), should not be the sole determining criteria or factor in assessing whether or not the OCA was legitimately the Church.

I think these "True Orthodox" you speak of, are gravely mistaken to use 1982, when the OCA began the imposition of the new calendar (with some exceptions) as some sort of arbitrary cut-off point.

The Metropolia / OCA betrayed Christ and Orthodoxy many years before this, when she willingly and of her own free choosing submitted to the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, being granted a false autocephaly.

I invite you and others to read the letters of Hieromonk Seraphim (+1982) of blessed memory from this time period.

Here are some excerpts:

Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose (1961-1982)
051.
June 8/21, 1970

"What is there to say: The Metropolia has gone through with its coup..."

"The Metropolia move, I believe, is the watershed of 20th-century Orthodoxy—from now on there will be two “Orthodoxies” in America: the real one (of which no one can doubt that our Synod has become the beacon-light) and the imitation, the product of the Protestantized-academicized Paris school joined to the practical indifference and secular Protestantism of American life. The proof of the case against the Metropolia (and the other like-thinking jurisdictions) lies not in its dubious tactics or even its criminal negotiations with the Soviets, but in the fact that its leadership is not preaching Orthodoxy but a cheap surrogate thereof. Yes, some priests still try, but the future belongs to Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff, who are not Orthodox, and the future generation is being raised on the blasphemous parody of Orthodoxy contained in the official publications, from Young Life to Concern."

"Now, of course, the Metropolia’s schism is complete, and no further communion is possible."

"But the Metropolia does not have principle or truth on her side, nor can she be considered any longer as within the Church."

"The “ship” of the Metropolia, as a Church, has come to shipwreck"

Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose (1961-1982)
053.
June 29/July 12, 1970

"From my contact with our people I can tell you: with every fiber of our body and every feeling of our soul we are repulsed by this free act of betrayal, and the feeling of sympathy which we do have for all but the leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate we do not have for the Metropolia. No, we do not “hate” you, and we recognize that most of you have followed this act out of a lack of awareness of the Church situation today; but thereby the Metropolia has alienated herself from us even more than Moscow, where the Church consciousness is forcibly crushed, but not freely given away!"

"Indeed, if any word can describe the Metropolia’s present state, it is surely: “Neo-Sergianism.”"

Letters of Fr. Seraphim Rose (1961-1982)
067.
Oct. 30/Nov. 12, 1970

"I hope you will read carefully our new Orthodox Word with its two articles on the Catacomb Church. You will see then that is not only we in the free world, but those over there as well (who have earned the right to their judgment by the tortures which they have undergone for Christ and Orthodoxy) who do not accept the Moscow Sergianists. And perhaps you will begin to see that our uncompromising rejection of the Metropolias concordat with Moscow has nothing to do with theoretical concepts of “canonicity,” but is part of the very life-blood of our Orthodoxy; this concordat is not “uncanonical”—it is treason to the Russian Church and to her new martyrs. You cannot begin to imagine the profound sorrow and tears the “autocephaly” has caused us."

"When you talk of reconciliation, therefore, you are truly seeing things through rose-colored glasses. In 1946 the Metropolia slapped the Synod in the face and kicked her bishops out (have you really not read that disgraceful history?); in 1970 she betrays the Russian Church entirely."

Since the date in question (Matushka Olga's repose) is 1979, allow me to share a couple of brief excerpts from the letter of St. Metropolitan Philaret of New York (+1985) to Abbess Magdalena (Countess Grabbe), Superior of the Lesna Convent in France, from the same year, 1979:

"You, matushka, have no doubt caught the basic trend of my thoughts. I consider (I speak, of course, only for myself) that the American and Parisian schismatics do not have grace..."

"To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics' "manipulations" that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the Parisians nor from the American False-Autocephalites, lest in place of the holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine."

So, as I have documented, at the time of the false autocephaly in 1970, Fr. Seraphim wrote that the Metropolia//OCA was in schism, treasonously betrayed the entire Russian Church and her new martyrs, was neo-Sergianist, and could no longer be considered as within the Church.

In 1979, St. Met. Philaret is calling the OCA "American schismatics" and "American False-Autocephalites" says he considers them without grace, and even if he were dying, he would not receive Communion from them.

Furthermore, the Metropolia, what is now known as the OCA, joined the World Council of Churches in 1953.

Now, the case has been made that in the first couple of assemblies, in 1948 and 1954 in Evanston, Orthodoxy was neither compromised nor betrayed, and it Orthodox participation could be regarded as a missionary endeavor, presenting Orthodoxy to the world.

But by the 1960's all that began to change, prompting St. Met. Philaret's First Sorrowful Epistle (1969).

Allow me to cite from it, if I may:

"When the first steps were taken in the organization of the Ecumenical Movement, many of the Orthodox Churches, following the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, began to participate in its conferences. At the time such participation did not cause any worry even among the most zealous Orthodox. They thought that the Church would suffer no injury if her representatives appeared among various truth-seeking Protestants with the aim of presenting Orthodoxy in the face of their various errors. Such a participation in inter-faith conferences could be thought of as having a missionary character.

This position was still maintained to a certain extent, though not always consistently, at the Evanston Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1954. There the Orthodox delegates openly stated that the decisions of the Assembly diverged so sharply from our teaching on the Church that they were unable in any way to join with the others in accepting them. Instead, they expressed the doctrine of the Orthodox Church in separate statements."

"The separate statements made in Evanston four years later on behalf of all the Orthodox delegates somewhat improved the situation, because they clearly showed that Orthodox Ecclesiology differs so much in essence from Protestant Ecclesiology that it is impossible to compose a joint statement. Now, however, the Orthodox participants in the World Council of Churches act differently; in an effort to unite truth with error, they have abandoned the principle expressed at Evanston."

"If initially the Orthodox participated in ecumenical meetings only to present the truth, performing, so to speak, a missionary service among confessions foreign to Orthodoxy, then now they have combined with them, and anyone can say that what was said at Uppsala was also said by the member Orthodox Churches in the person of their delegates. Alas that it should be said in the name of the whole Orthodox Church!"
______________________________

So you see, by 1968, with the Fourth Assembly of the WCC, held in Uppsala, Sweden, participation and membership in the WCC became untenable, and all those who wished to remain Orthodox should have listened to St. Philaret's wise counsel, and left.

Of course, the OCA did no such thing. They embraced the ecumenical movement, rather than withdrawing from it, continuing in the WCC until this day.

So, please tell us specifically who are these "True Orthodox" who think it's proper to recognize the glorification of Matushka Olga, who reposed in the OCA in 1979?

I would like to warn people to be wary of these "True Orthodox" who venerate Matushka Olga, as they are uninformed and ignorant of some basic history.