Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to a ROCA priest on the MP

[Daniel]

No matter how sincere a
man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private
opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church?

The public opinion of the entire Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has consistently been that the Moscow Patriarchate, though captive, remained a Grace bearing Orthodox Church. Here, Met. Philaret himself states that one's private opinion does not annul a ruling adopted by the Church. Therefore, it seems ths private opinion he expresses here does not carry the same weight as the opinion accepted publicly, time and time again by the entire Church Abroad.

By public opinion do you mean the offical "opinion" of the Synod or the collected private opinions of those in the Synond who, for some reason or another, hold that the MP is a valid church and thereby disregaring Met. Anastasy's edict to not to have any communion with the Soviet church whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact.?

The only reason I can think of that he [Met. A] would forbid any contact is because to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.

[Daniel]

The MP is called, amongst other things, uncanonical, but never Grace-less.

Peter,

Maybe this was nice polite way of saying they have no Grace in their Mysteries

[bogoliubtsy]

The MP is called, amongst other things, uncanonical, but never Grace-less.

Peter,

Maybe this was nice polite way of saying they have no Grace in their Mysteries

Daniel,

Every Orthodox jurisdiction in America is in violation of the canons as we speak by virtue of their being more than one bishop officiating per city. Doesn't mean we're all graceless...I hope.

[bogoliubtsy]

By public opinion do you mean the offical "opinion" of the Synod or the collected private opinions of those in the Synond[/i]

I mean the official position. There has never been an official position that the MP is withouth grace.

[Justin Kissel]

OOD

I'm sure this "opinion" of SAINT Philaret has been "clarified" recently to mean that what he really meant was of a local nature. This becomes quite clear when one realizes the "clarified" Anathema of 1983 was really not an anathema at all, it was just a exercise to show that the ROCOR could level an anathema if it wanted to. My oh my have things changed.

I think this is an unfair judgment. First, I have only seen hazy evidence for viewing the 1983 anathema as being intended to have church-wide importance/use/reach. The only aspect that seems to have been intended to be "church wide" was it's general witness: ie. they hoped that other local churches would notice the anathema, and take similar actions. For this "witnessing" to the truth, I've seen lots of evidence. I've not seen much direct evidence, such as direct quotes, saying "this condemnation can effect the whole Church, and we will see whether some bodies some day fall under this anathema in the future" and so forth. Also, whether the anathema is legislative (like a canon) or an automatic condemnation of anyone who would hold to the mentioned beliefs, has not been demonstrated from what I've seen. It seems to me, from what I've heard at that time, what I know now, and what I know of ROCOR in general, that the anathema was pushed few but left a lot of confusion rather than totally solving the problem. (this, as you know, is perfectly normal: there is often confusion and discussion after a council)

Also, I think it is unfair to say that it was just some type of "show of power" (or whatever you had in mind). The anathema, even according to those who say it has only a local character, still has power and can be used and important in the right situation. If you hold to the idea that it is of a local character, and that it was legislative, then the anathema was simply being put "on the books". There's no requirement that it must be used a certain number of times, or within a certain time period. ROCOR wanted to make a statement, and protect their flock. They have done both, even though they haven't actively using it to condemn anyone. It's very existence has already witnessed to the world--even if the world has kept their ears shut. And it's very existence has protected the flock from error, for it sets a clear position by ROCOR, and there is no confusion about certain ecumenical beliefs among the laity.

[Justin Kissel]

PS.

OOD, The problem I'm having here is that my spiritual father (and others like him), who I don't consider to be a "rabid ecumenist" or anything of that sort, have said that it was of a local character and legistlative. Now if I'm going to disagree with that, I'm going to make sure that I have some strong evidence first. For example, does anyone have documents or quotes (any at all?) from the mid-80's that show the anathema to be more than of a local, legislative character. Maybe they've been shown before, maybe I've forgotten. I admit that this is possible. If that's the case, though, could someone show them to me again?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

You have not been the only one contending the Anathema was of a local character, so when I wrote my comment above, which was rather stupid of me, I didn't have you in mind in particular...forgive me if I upset you.

Since I have not commented on this, I will now say out of necessity that I consider it a ludicrous argument (no offense) to say an anathema, the most serious and dreaded of all proclamations of the Church, can be restricted to a "local character".

Saint Dionysius writes: "Thus, the hierarchs, as expounders of the divine statutes, also have powers to excommunicate not that the All-wise Divine Principal, so to speak, servilely obeys their irrational impulses' but being prophetically moved by the Supreme initiating Spirit, they excommunicate, as is due, those who have been judged by God."

Saint Dionysuis is saying a dreaded sentence of the Church is a declaration that those who have become rotten members by their own actions, have cut themselves off, and declarations of the heirarchy are simply a recognition of God's existing judgement.

Therefore, an anathema is not a legalistic technicality, it is the recognition of an existing reality so severe, a member can no longer be recognized as Orthodox. If it cannot be recognized as Orthodox locally, then in no way could it be recognized as Orthodox anywhere.

And for the exact same reasons, an unjust deposition or anathema, has no meaning whatsoever.

With the theory that you are forwarding, a person found to be a heretic "locally", could join another jurisdiction and somehow be restored to Orthodoxy, as if God's judgement could change - which is most ridiculous.

I see such arguments, especially the wonderful mentle gymnastics of Fr. John Shaw, a purposful blindness with the express intention of acheiving a certain goal.