Sorrowful Epistles.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 8 January 2004 5:10 pm

As kind of a split from another discussion going on right now, I'd like to post a few excerpts from Metropolitan Philaret's Sorrowful Epistles, I suppose in order to show that Metropolitan Philaret considered the "world Orthodox" to indeed still be Orthodox.

Both epistles begin:

TO THEIR HOLINESSES AND THEIR BEATITUDES,
THE PRIMATES OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCHES,
THE MOST REVEREND METROPOLITANS, ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS.

Now that I think about it, that should probably be enough to prove my point! But I'll go on.

Every one of us solemnly promises at his consecration to abide by our Faith and to obey the canons of the Holy Fathers, vowing before God to keep Orthodoxy inviolate from the temptations and errors which creep into the Church's life.

Sounds like he's talking about realordinations or realbishops here.

Can any one of us be silent if he sees that many of his brethren simultaneously are walking along a path that leads them and their flock to a disastrous precipice through their unwitting loss of Orthodoxy?

Ah, first his fellow bishops of World Orthodoxy are called "brethren", and then he speaks of the possibleloss of Orthodoxy that could come.

But the position taken by the Orthodox delegates at the Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala makes the concern of the zealots of Orthodoxy even more acute, and makes it necessary for us to communicate our sorrow and confusion to all our Brother Orthodox Bishops.

Again, brother Orthodox bishops.

...we find it imperative to address this letter to all the Orthodox Bishops whom the Lord has appointed to take care of His Church on earth.

Again, sounds like his considers them to be real bishops taking care of a real church.

The report on the Uppsala Assembly shocked us greatly, because from it we could see more clearly than ever how far the error of Ecumenism is winning the official approval of a number of our Churches.

"Our Churches."

We take the liberty of saying that it seems our Brother Bishops have treated this matter without sufficient attention, without realizing how far our Church is being drawn into the sphere of anti-canonical and even of anti-dogmatical agreements with the heterodox. Emphasis added.

And on the MP:
These people are not free. Whether they wish to or not, they are forced to speak in obedience to orders from Communist Moscow. The burden of persecution makes them more deserving of compassion than of blame.

From the 2nd Epistle:

And if the Apostle St. Paul was weak with those who were weak and burning with those who were offended, how then can we Bishops of God remain indifferent to the growth of errors which threaten the salvation of the souls of many of our brothers in Christ?

Brothers in Christ.

Such healthy reactions against the spreading of ecumenism allow us to hope that the Church of Christ will be spared this new storm which threatens her.

Threatens. Not "which has torn apart", not "which has caused the majority of Orthodox to become heretics."

It is, therefore, upon the grounds stated above that the Most Reverend Members of our Council of Bishops unanimously agreed to recognize ecumenism as a dangerous heresy. Having observed its spread, they asked us to share our observation with our Brother Bishops throughout the world.

We ask them first of all to pray that the Lord spare His Holy Church the storm which would be caused by this new heresy, opening the spiritual eyes of all unto understanding of truth in the face of error.

I realize I've been selective in my quotes, but it's a specific question I'm bringing up. Thank God Blessed Metropolitan Philaret's words seem to have reached many people since they were written. "Dangerous" Orthodox Ecumenism, since the 1960's, has in fact decreased. His warnings to his "brother bishops" seem to have worked somewhat. I hope his words continue to be heard and heeded by the Orthodox bishops. [/i]

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu 8 January 2004 7:29 pm

Just for arguments sake, Schmemann would, and does disagree with your conclusions.

For indeed the appeal by one Orthodox bishop to "Primates, Metropolitans, Archbishops and all brother-bishops," if it means anything at all, implies first of all this Bishop recognizes them as brothers i.e., as valid bishops, exercising the fulness of their rights, recognizes the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church and seeks the solution of a problem which be deems very serious through established canonical channels. But this is precisely what the "Russian Church Outside Russia" has consistently denied by her words and deeds. By unilaterally prejudging the question on which at the same time she seems to appeal to the universal Episcopate, by openly transgressing jurisdictional boundaries, by interfering jurisdictionally in the affairs of other Churches, she has created a schism and put herself out of communion with the Church Universal. But, then, what meaning could the "Sorrowful Epistle" have?

One may ask, to which "brothers," to which "Primates" is the "Sorrowful Epistle" addressed? The hierarchs of the Churches behind the Iron Curtain being disqualified as canonical bishops on political grounds; Constantinople as being already condemned; who remains? The Bishops of the Church of Serbia, whose Patriarch, by accepting the presidency of the WCC, is presumably guilty of some heresy? The Church of Greece, where the Church of Metropolitan Filaret openly supports the Old-Calendarists? The Church of Finland which not only has accepted the new calendar but even celebrates Easter according to the Western computation? The Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria who are in communion with both Constantinople and Moscow? Once more, the "Russian Church Outside Russia" may be right or wrong in her doctrinal stand—this is for the entire Church to decide—but on purely canonical grounds and of her own volition, she is in schism with the totality of the Orthodox Episcopate and her appeal to it as "brothers" is, to say the least, illogical and meaningless. One cannot at the same time be in and out. One cannot claim the right to judge the entire Church and at the same time appeal to her. One cannot pretend to uphold the canons and at the same time deny canonical protection to those whom she has already condemned

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 8 January 2004 7:36 pm

Daniel wrote:
Just for arguments sake, Schmemann would, and does disagree with your conclusions.

Indeed, he would and does! And I disagree with the time and circumstances under which he approached the MP for autocephaly. As he says: Once more, the "Russian Church Outside Russia" may be right or wrong in her doctrinal stand—this is for the entire Church to decide.

At the present time, the dialogue between ROCOR and MP is helping to sort out this question. Interestingly, this bit taken from an article on the recent ROCOR clergy conference, spoken by Father George Mitrofanov(MP), sheds some light on that question and the process of coming to a resolution on that "decision".

In conclusion, Fr. George said that the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) now admits the validity of the church path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church (in the persons of the hierarchs who did not accept the path of Metropolitan Sergius: Metropolitans Agafangel, Kyrill and others), and the best proof of this is the fact that the opponents of Metropolitan Sergius' path were glorified in Russia and are now set as examples for the faithful.

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu 8 January 2004 7:55 pm

bogoliubtsy wrote:
In conclusion, Fr. George said that the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) now admits the validity of the church path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church (in the persons of the hierarchs who did not accept the path of Metropolitan Sergius: Metropolitans Agafangel, Kyrill and others), and the best proof of this is the fact that the opponents of Metropolitan Sergius' path were glorified in Russia and are now set as examples for the faithful.

I know this is slightly getting off topic, but...

Wouldn't that means Alexy is sorta condemning himself at the same time, by glorifing some of the New Martyrs? I don't quite see how both paths (Serguis or the Catacombs) can be the right. But this is for another discussion.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 8 January 2004 11:19 pm

There were many, if not more Rusisan martyrs who were in communion with Sergius and the later Russian Patriarchs. But yes, it does raise an interesting question. It almost seems like a bit of (God forbid! Is it possible?! ) repentance is going on!

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri 9 January 2004 9:34 pm

So, do you think Schmemann has a point or no? It kinda seems he does, (though his argument is more from the point of trying to discredit the Synod and prove they are schismatic). Met. Philaret did recognize the GOC as a lawful and Orthodox Synod within the canonical jursidiction/territory of the Church of Greece. It would seem to be some what of a contridiction to see both as lawful and Orthodox.

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Sat 10 January 2004 6:00 pm

Something to consider...

From the opening of the first epistle of St.Cyril to the heresairch Nestorius,

To the Most Pious and Devout fellow minister NESTORIUS, Cyril greeting in the Lord.

...and from the opening of St.Cyril's third epistle to Nestorius,

To the Most Pious and Devout fellow minister Nestorius Cyril and the co-assembled Synod in Alexandria from out of the Province of Egypt, greeting in the Lord.

The history of the Church is filled with similar examples of retaining the use of honourifics in discourses, in an attempt to "keep things civil." Too much is being made of the use of similar honourifics in St.Philaret's Sorrowful Epistles.

Seraphim