Bishop Daniel of Erie's Thoughts on ROCA-MP Unification

[尼古拉前执事]

I am posting this only because Bishop Daniel and one of his priests have both confirmed that this interview took place and is factual.

INTERVIEW WITH ROCOR BISHOP DANIEL - Anti MP!

Nathanael Kapner: "Can you tell us a little about your background dear Vladyka?"

Bishop Daniel (Alexandrov): "I was born in Odessa of the Ukraine in 1930. My great grandfather on my mother's side was the last governor of Alaska. After the sale of Alaska in the the late 19th Century, my great grandfather moved back to Russia. So you see, my family already had some kind of "stake" in America.

"My grandfather on my father's side was an officer in the White Army. And my father, who also served in the White Army was awarded The Cross Of St George, for taking a machine gun from a Bolshevik.

"In 1938 we moved to the Urals, for the Bolsheviks discovered that my father once served in the White Army — and consequently he lost his job as a technician for a Magnetics Observatory. My father was then forced to find another job. He finally found a menial job where he could only work a as a common laborer in a steel factory in the Urals. We settled in the Ural area on April 1st 1938. On April 4th, only three days later, my father was arrested and disappeared."

Nathanael: "Did you ever learn what happened to your father?"

Bishop Daniel: "We never knew what happened to our father. It was only after the Soviet archives were opened for examination a few years ago, that I learned that my father was executed shortly after his arrest. This was the barbarity of the Bolsheviks."

Nathanael: "How did you end up coming to America?"

Bishop Daniel: "This is quite a long story. To make it short, we eventually moved back to Odessa where my mother, an accomplished violinist, supported the family by teaching and performing. By this time the Roumanians occupied Odessa and we had complete religious freedom.

"But eventually Stalin and the communists moved in, and we were forced to flee to Switzerland. From there we made our way to America in 1949, where my mother's father resided, having settled there as a merchant marine some years prior to our arrival. He died shortly after our arrival."

Nathanael: "How did you begin your work amongst the Old Believers?"

Bishop Daniel: "Our parish, "The Church Of The Nativity in Erie PA," is of the Old Rite, or as it is properly known, "The Old Ritualists." I myself had no family members in the "Old Ritualists." But having lived amongst them, I grew to have a great respect for them. The Old Believers are conservatives and I wished to bring them into our church.

"I realized that the some of the Old Believers that I was aquainted with had no priesthood. Since they were priestless, I wanted to help them so that they could receive the fullness of the Churchs' Sacraments."

Nathanael Kapner: "Can you tell us sonething about your career with the ROCOR?"

Bishop Daniel: "I graduated from the Jordanville Seminary in 1956. Metropolitan Laurus was a fellow student of mine. I was ordained to the priesthood in the early 70s. I soon became a parish priest and all the while, I kept in contact with the Old Believers.

"In the early nineties, I was contacted by Metropolitan Vitaly, regarding the Synod's wish to ordain me as a bishop. I was very troubled by this and could not sleep all night.

"The very next morning, I called Metropolitan Vitaly and said, "Does the Synod want yet another bishop? No, Vladyka, I am not interested in becoming another bishop. But if it is for the purpose of helping the flock of the Old Believers, then yes, I will accept.

"I was soon consecrated as a vicar Bishop to the Metropolian — and not connected with the Eastern Diocese as such. For the Eastern Diocese is "New-Rite" Orthodox. My espiscopal rank is to aid and perpetuate the Old Rite Believers, along with their particular concerns and customs."

Nathanael: "Vladyka. This week you issued already two statements expressing your strong objections to the MP-ROCOR union.

"In both statements you spoke of the dangers of the ROCOR relinquishing their indepedance to the Moscow Patriarchy. Why is this "independance of the ROCOR" sucn an issue for you?"

Bishop Daniel: "I made these statements for I have been recently asked to sign some documents that favor the union. But I can not hide my objections to this union. I have now publicly stated what I truly believe is the correct path for our Church.

"The ROCOR has enjoyed independence for over 80 years. Why should we now give away our independence as a gift to the MP? We already have our independence. We do not need the MP to grant to us what we already have!

"For uniting with the MP will mean our self-destruction. This self destruction could even be called suicide. For though in the best of circumstances, the Moscow Patriarchy promises us our continued independence, it will soon be taken away."

Nathanael: "But doesn't Metropolitan Laurus assert that the ROCOR will remain administratively independent?"

Bishop Daniel: "This is nothing but conjecture. Let's see what will happen in reality!

"Autonomy is usually an ecclestiastical framework when a church belongs to another. Autocephaly is a scenario when a church is entirely independent. The ROCOR has enjoyed virtual 'autocephaly' for over 80 years. This is better than any kind of 'autonomy' that the Moscow Patriarchy could possibly grant to us.

"I compare this situation to the Roman Catholic Church. Many Orthodox Churches have full independence — yet in matters of the faith they are the same. And this is acceptable.

"But with the Roman Catholic Church, they claim to be the only true church and would want to subjugate all other churches to their authority.

"Why should we subdue our church to the authority of the MP who are much larger than us and far more powerful? We are being forced into this union. Even lay people can choose who they would like as their spiritual fathers.

"But we at the ROCOR, who are being forced into this union, do not trust the Moscow Patriarchy. Only a few years ago. the Moscow Patriarchy was supporting the Soviet government. The Moscow Patriarchy never took a strong stand on matters of the faith. We are Russian emigres, and it is quite understandable that we do not want anything even resembling a soviet-influenced church."

Nathanael: "Bishop Agafangel of the Ukraine is against the ROCOR uniting with the Moscow Patriarchy. Have you been in contact with him?"

Bishop Daniel: "No. But I have heard from others that he shares the same thoughts as I do."

Nathanael: "Why do you think Metropolitan Laurus is pressing for unification with the MP?

Bishop Daniel: "I cannot tell you — I do not understand. Is Metrpolitan Laurus being forced by circumstances?"

Nathanael: "What circumstances would be forcing Metropolitan Laurus to press for unification?"

Bishop Daniel: "Other bishops."

Nathanael: "Like Mark of Berlin?"

Bishop Daniel: "Yes."

Nathanael: "What is your opinion of Abp Mark Of Berlin?"

Bishop Daniel: "I am surprized. Archbishop Mark is a German and he has been welcomed into our Russian Church. He has been elevated to such a point that he is presently 2nd to the Metropolitan himself.

"And now Archbishop Mark works to destroy our church! I am at completely opposite poles from him. If we follow the will of Archbishop Mark and unite with the MP, the ROCOR church will not be the same church that we belonged to for over 80 years!"

Nathanael: "Will you leave the ROCOR if the Synod votes for the union?"

Bishop Daniel: "If the Synod votes for the union, the ROCOR will be absorbed into the Moscow Patriarchy. Yes I will leave."

[尼古拉前执事]

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Daniel, Bishop of Erie

246 East Second Street
Erie, Pennsylvania, 16507

September 6/19, 2006

To the Secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

In view of the fact that at this time the signing on behalf of our Church of the “Act of Canonical Communion” between our Church and the Moscow Patriarchate is expected, I consider it my duty to declare my resolute disagreement with the signing of this “Act” on behalf of our Church.

First of all, the contents of this “Act” is being kept secret, and we are supposed to believe someone at their word, that such a signing is necessary and beneficial for our Church. Since it is concealed from us we cannot judge this for ourselves, but must believe this based on someone’s say so.

Even if this were necessary for the improvement of the relations between our Churches, still it is incomprehensible why there is such a rush? There is already talk that this “Act” will be adopted in a triumphant ceremony and how concelebration and communing of the mysteries will begin, prior to clarifying the view on this of our entire Church: the episcopate, clerical order and laity. It is only after clarifying their attitude toward the “Act”, in the event that it is positive, that one may even speak about a timeframe and an order for establishing consecrational relations.

Our people want to do this in reverse: first decide to recognize the “Act” and devise its signing ritual to the minutest detail, and only afterwards, in the best case scenario, be interested in the opinion of our entire Church from which this “Act” is being kept secret, probably to the last minute until it will be too late to discuss anything.

Therefore I deem the adoption of this “Act” under the given circumstances to be imprudent and untimely, until it is made public and all of our Church is given the opportunity to review it prior to it being adopted or rejected.

Daniel, Bishop of Erie

[Ekaterina]

Fr Pimen Simon's address at the IV All-Diaspora Council
My reason for requesting the opportunity to address this conference is because I have constantly noted the ironic parallel between the attempt to accomplish reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP and the attempts to reconcile Old Believers to, how shall I say, “Niconians”. Every argument I have heard sounds the same as the diatribes between Old Believers and New Ritualists that have gone on now for several centuries. First of all, the charges — depending on what side you find yourself:

Old Believers “New Ritualists”

1. You are heretics. 1. You are schismatics.
2. You want to absorb and destroy us. 2. You look for excuses to remain apart.
3. The patriarch has no right to claim 3. Apostolic succession is intact and
   legitimacy personal sin does not destroy Apostolic succession.
4. We have retained purity and truth. 4. You have become pharisaical in your exalted opinion of yourselves.

I could go on, but I’m sure that you get the point. As an Old Believer “nastavnik” struggling to educate my flock as to the legitimacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, I came to realize that one of the most formidable tasks I faced was speaking to the vituperative and extreme language used to justify the Old Believer position. Old Believer polemicists had labeled the “Niconians” as heretics, betrayers of the Faith, persecutors and even as ministers of the Antichrist—if Nicon was not the Antichrist himself. Constantly the question arose: would joining the ROC be a betrayal of our forefathers who died voluntarily or involuntarily for the preservation of the “True Faith”? And if we are honest, it must be admitted that many of the reforms of Patriarch Nicon and the later westernized practices of the ROC were unnecessary and ill advised. Thus, Old Believers had some justification in feeling reticent to recognize the legitimacy of the ROC. And to this day no Old Believer can join himself to the ROC unless he can conclude that Stoglav, an all-Russian Council, had exceeded its authority in certain areas.

And so here we are again. Did Metropolitan Sergius lead the Church in Russia to be heretical? Is there even a legal Patriarchate in Russia? What does the MP want from us? Do they want to annihilate us? Are we betraying our forefathers? Has the MP repented? I have been struggling now for over 20 years to convince other Old Believers to follow our path when we united ourselves to the “Niconian” Church. Recently I spent several months talking to two young Old Believers from Oregon who had decided that they and their families could no longer live without priesthood. They agreed that there might very well be legitimacy in the Niconian priesthood and that they would join us as soon as the ROCOR faithful, who seemed to have returned to true Orthodoxy, would begin praying with the two-fingered sign of the Cross. I looked at them incredulously and advised them that they shouldn’t hold their breaths. Always one more reason to justify the division!

Vladika Daniel told me over 20 years ago that the problem with most Old Believers is that each step the ROC took to answer the Old Believers’ justification for not uniting would be met with another requirement demanded before any union could occur. And now? We make requests (or demands). Collaboration between state and church must end. The MP 2000 Sobor seems to answer. New Martyrs and Royal Martyrs must be glorified. Repentance must be sought. But the reality is that no matter what is done, the faithful who grew up listening to all of the insults hurled at the MP are never going to be satisfied—even as most Old Believers won’t end their division with the New Ritualists—no matter what steps are taken.

And finally, as I wrote in my open letter, please admit that the collaboration and submission of the Church to Peter I’s order to forbid the election of a Patriarch and to place a state procurator over the Synod of bishops is not far removed from the submission of the 20th century. Or consider the Church’s submission and collaboration with “Orthodox” Catherine the Great. Do you really believe the claims that this is all so different because the Church was united and servile to “Orthodox” rulers rather than to avowed atheists? Of course there is a difference, but as an Old Believer who has no connection with the need to claim the legitimacy of 18th and 19th century collaboration with the state, while calling the collaboration of the 20th century unmitigated sin, I must personally stand before you and ask forgiveness as I suggest that there is a significant degree of hypocrisy in such a claim.

My good friend and the translator for most of our Old Rite publications, Fr. Herman Ciuba, has stated to me on a number of occasions that there are so many critical issues facing the Church and the faithful today, that to constantly argue over what Metropolitan Sergius did in 1927 ought to be put in the past, even as the persecutions against the Old Believers must be put into the past for God’s judgment. I agree. In the 1970s after you courageously lifted the anathemas against the Old Rite and against Old Believers, I came into contact with then Hieromonk Hilarion, Hieromonk Ioanniki and Fr. Theodore Jurewicz. They showed me love and Orthodoxy. I stopped worrying about who did what to whom in the 17th century. They loved; I had to forgive, and they forgave me. Of course, I had to investigate carefully whether there was heresy in the ROC. And you had to decide if the Old Believers had become heretics. I found none; you could find none.

Do we really believe that millions of Orthodox Christians in Russia are not partaking of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Liturgy? If they are, must there not be a time to forgive and reconcile? We did, Old Believers and Niconians—who would have thought it possible? Will you act in the same manner that you criticized us Old Believers for so long as being stubborn, bull-headed people who would not listen to logic?

When we came to priesthood, we had dissenters. Some left us. Some have condemned me in public places. Some have spat at my wife in public places. Some claimed that I had been given a gift of a red Cadillac as payment for my betrayal of the pure Old Believer faith. And if you make peace with the faithful under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, there will be dissent, rumors and even some division, I fear. But if this is what is right, then at some time we must have the courage to do what is right. If it is the will of God, we will be safe and saved. I have experienced the pain and suffering of division. I encourage those who would cause raskol to trust that the grace of the Holy Spirit will guide our bishops to rightly divide the word of truth. And, as I indicated in my open letter after Vladika Daniel’s interviews, my parish and I will remain faithful to the bishops of ROCOR to whom we united ourselves in 1983.