TRANSLATION FROM RUSSIAN
September - October 2005
Letter addressed to His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus
and to all Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
signed by members of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
of the South American Diocese (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Venezuela)
Your Eminences, Your Graces,
We, the undersigned, members of the churches of Buenos Aires, and its surrounding areas, and Argentina as a whole, are worried about the future of our Church. We have gathered on our own initiative in a meeting with a large number of participants and decided to send this appeal to all our bishops asking them to analyze our conclusions against the union, at this time, of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (RPTZ in Russian) with MP (Moscow Patriarchate - MP in Russian). These conclusions are based on the precepts handed down to us by our most venerable Metropolitans Anthony and Anastasius, as well as their successors.
We are definitely against the fact that negotiations are being carried out by a committee without a proper mandate from an Ecumenical Council (Vsezarubezhny Sobor) which should have been convened prior to starting negotiations. Why is it that negotiations and the resolution of such a core issue for RPTZ's future - the union with MP - is a prerogative of the Church hierarchy? This is something that ought to be decided only by the highest authority: the Ecumenical Council (Vsezarubezhny Sobor). The resolutions adopted by the last Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917-1918 were never abrogated. One of these resolutions reads as follows: «In the Russian Orthodox Church the top authority: legislative, administrative, judicial and monitoring lies with the Council of the Russian Church (Pomestny Sobor)». It was also stated that the Holy Synod takes care of pastoral and hierarchical issues that are mainly related to the Church's internal affairs ....It is true that in the temporary resolution that created the RPTZ, that was confirmed by the 1936 Bishop's Council, there is a paragraph that reads that the highest authority for RPTZ's legal, judicial and administrative issues is the Bishop's Council. However, in the list of duties assigned to the Bishops Council there is not even an allusion to the fact that bishops have any authority to decide about the future our Church.
Metropolitan Vladimir, from the City of Moscow, before the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was called in 1917-1918, stated that the Synod must be totally comprehensive, that it should include all members of the Church, because «if the Council includes only bishops then the decisions will be biased... not allowing the participation of priests and laymen in the Council may be construed as an expression of clericalism. And this may prompt to a lack of confidence and discontent amongst laymen towards any decisions made by the Council». The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad had also ruled that decisions should be made in a counciliar manner. Our Church cherished the traditions and customs of this counciliar principle (sobornost in Russian) under the wise guidance of our forefathers. Our Church suffered many hardships and called three councils with the participation of priests and laymen from all of the Church Abroad.
Of course, organizers of the future Ecumenical Council Outside Russia, may very well produce a mass “YES” vote (for the Union) by preselecting certain predetermined priests and laymen, limiting the number of dioceses representatives, etc. Something similar has already happened at the General Clergy Meeting (Vsezarubezhny Syiezd Duhovenstva) which took place two years ago where priests that spoke against the union practically had their mouths shut. This prompts the following question: is it worthwhile to send any delegates to the Council, when it is just going to be a pro-forma rubber stamping meeting, and the outcome will be prepared and concocted beforehand?
We do not agree, either, with the fact that negotiations were carried out secretly, keeping priests and laymen totally unaware of any results. Furthermore, negotiations continued in complete disregard of the opinion of most laymen and regular priests who are against an untimely union with the MP.
Having become aware of the contents of the «Documents» regarding the joint work of the committees and the respective «Comments» (all of them without any signatures) we deem that a whole series of resolutions are completely inadmissible for us, faithful sons and daughters of the RPTZ. The core obstacles for the union with the MP have been and continue to be the following:
- Sergianism (Serguianstvo in Russian) in all of its expressions.
- MP's participation in the ecumenical «interdenominational» (as they are now called) gatherings, and the lack of any decision by the MP to withdraw from the World Council of Churches (WCC).
However, the canonical relationship project does not include any clear-cut and satisfactory decision regarding the elimination of all these key obstacles and everything is extremely confusing, hazy and based on casuistry.
The fact is that sergianism – is not merely a subordination of the Church to the interests of a government that fights God, but treason to Christ's Church and adoration and worship of the forces of Satan – a sin which requires true repentance. It is a sin that cannot be merely “forgotten in the past” as said Patriarch Alexis II, as the Church teaches us that sins that have not been washed by repentance, continue being sins for ever and ever.
Here are some excerpts from a letter written by His Eminence Metr. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) addressed to Metr. Sergius “who was a former pupil and friend”. «As far as you are concerned ... you have attempted to connect light with darkness, you fell into temptation….you did not follow Jesus Christ’s, nor the Saint Martyrs example, who rejected any kind of compromise. You bowed onto the original and declared enemy of our salvation. You even attempted to dethrone the martyrs and confessors… and you stated that they apparently were subjected to imprisonment not because they venerate Christ, but because they are counter-revolutionaries». And furthermore: «We are free bishops of the Russian Church, and we do not want any truce with Satan». (Reply dated May 6, 1933 to a request from Metr. Sergius Stragorodsky that the Church Abroad demonstrate its «royalty to those who fight God, persecutors and blasphemers against the Holy Church of Christ» Not only did he limit himself to the fact that in his “Declaration” (dated 1927) he was calling upon all of Russian people to be loyal subjects of the God fighting state "not only for fear, but a matter of conscience” but he demanded the same behavior from the Church Abroad.
We are not blaming or condemning Metr. Sergius – judgment is only in God's hands, but we have to condemn Sergianism as a sin which is embedded in the «Declaration.» The Moscow Patriarchate is attempting to justify or excuse Metr. Sergius by saying that even though there is some lack of truth in his “Declaration» and that he gave the Church a chance to continue existing with a government that was fighting God and he thus saved the lives of many clerics. However, there is complete silence about the large number of bishops and priests who rejected the “Declaration”, did not sign it and were tortured to death in prison. Let us recall the words of our Lord Jesus Christ about Judas “but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.” (Matt. 26, 24). But this was how Metr. Sergius was clearing up the way towards the patriarchate, a position he finally reached, but not in a canonical way.
Ecumenism «is a heresy amongst all heresies», which contradicts the Dogma of the Church.
The matter of ecumenism has not been resolved at all. The participation of the MP in «interdenominational» organizations and in the World Council of Churches is absolutely inadmissible. Pursuant to the Canons of the Holy Apostles, No. 10 reads “If any one shall pray, even in a private house, with an excommunicated person, let him also be excommunicated.” Canon No. 45 reads: “Let any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has only prayed with heretics, be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed and excommunicated.”
According to Patriarch Alexis II MP representatives «are taking the light of Christ's Truth» to those of other beliefs, but nobody seems to have been enlightened by this light. At the same time, RPTZ has been extremely careful, kept away from heresy and has converted many people to the orthodox religion in different parts of the world. Excellent examples of this are Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) and brother Joseph Muñoz-Cortes, the very well known curator of the myrrh-streaming Iver Icon of the Mother of God.
If the MP, as we read in the «Documents», includes “conditions” for the participation of the Orthodox Church in interdenominational organizations, then it has clear intentions to continue participating in ecumenism in the future, and it has no intention whatsoever to reject it. We have not heard either that the MP has any intentions at all to resign its membership at the World Council of Churches. Isn’t the objective of all these interdenominational organizations to create a worldwide “religion” without any shape, without any spirit, to prepare all men and women for Antichrist? And they want us to be part of this heresy? God save us from this!
Now we are being told that MP representatives did not participate in these general or universal prayers, they were merely present there.... but they were there as delegates and not as «observers»!
We would also like to point out the lack of clarity and the lack of determination in the «Documents». For example, paragraph four reads that in case the union takes place «the Church Abroad shall continue to be independent in pastoral, administrative and other matters. The supreme authority within the Russian Church Abroad shall lie in the Council of Bishops (Sobor). However, we also read that any decisions which are beyond the scope of authority of the RPTZ Council of Bishops shall be made by the Moscow Patriarchate. What kind of scope and/ or authority are we talking about and who establishes the limits of such authority? From the legal standpoint this kind of definition does not guarantee an independent existence for the RPTZ.
Sergianism oozes from all documents; it is still there, and it is something that alters, blurs, obscures and distorts many issues.
Bishops and priests who insist on an immediate union with the Moscow Patriarchate, at any price, say very matter-offhandedly that all those who have a different opinion are schismatic and that in the future they shall be members of sects. Because of this we should not listen to them. It is quite possible that this may happen, and we exhort these bishops and priests to temporarily forget about “oikonomia” (economy as used for church issues in the Russian Orthodox Church) in the process of negotiations and to apply this same “oikonomia” in its own home - the RPTZ - which will not allow any divisions or heresies among the faithful and will answer any doubts and inquiries and will convince them that the chosen path is the true and right one. In order for this to be avoided, we read in Prophet Ezekiel (3, 17-18): “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman ......therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.”
We are laymen, and we have been entrusted to you, our priests and bishops, so that you would take care of us as good fathers, we were not handed over to you as servants or slaves who have no right to speak.
We are deeply saddened as we are now convinced that the Moscow Patriarchate has practically not departed one single step from the position it held prior to the start of negotiations. And RPTZ's committee accepted this position as something that is not subject to analysis whatsoever and it became busy with issues related to the present situation in the Russian Federation, the moral status of MP priests, the RF President, and some positive external aspects in the MP's life, etc. And to make matters simpler, they just suggested that everything that used to be formerly black should in the future be deemed to be white, and thus they brushed away all barriers and impediments. The MP has merely expressed its good intentions not to repeat any past errors in the future, but all of this is covered by a deep, hazy and blurring cloud. The question arises, quite involuntarily: is this committee independent in its decisions or is it subject to a mysterious external pressure?
We also have our doubts about the fact that those who strive towards the union at any cost and under any terms and conditions, cannot renounce reaching their objectives, either of their own free will or as a result of coercion. They are even ready to allow eucharistic communion immediately, which would be totally against Church Canons. Eucharistic communion may only be an outcome, but not the start as there are matters of principle that must be solved before. It is really very regretful that such suggestions came from certain clerics and were even heard from a bishop's pulpit. Nobody has officially explained the Church's point of view on this issue
It is not our intention to condemn anyone, but we deem it is our duty of Christian Orthodox people to say directly, without any hypocrisy or falseness, that we cannot follow that same path. Let them leave the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (RPTZ) we shall stay and will continue safeguarding and defending the truth in as much as we can. Through the grace of God we shall wait for the day when the Orthodox religion flourishes and triumphs in Russia with a properly elected authority, all in accordance with Church Canons. Then, and only then, we shall not only unite with our Russian Church but shall merely merge into it in a natural way.
We sincerely hope and expect that the Russian Orthodox Church, from which the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has never been separated severed, will rise. We have always prayed «for the Bishops of the persecuted Russian Church» before naming our own bishop. All of us are waiting for the rise and renaissance of a strong Russian Orthodox Church, the only one that can stand against the terrible evil that is coming over all humanity; the renaissance of Russia will come immediately thereafter. But all this may only be possible, we say it once again, provided there is repentance from the above named sins. We are really happy that the Russian people are relatively free in their religious beliefs and we pray for the Russian people; but we are against the MP, which was organized by Stalin's civil government, a government that was fighting God, and with a political purpose. And on top of it, some MP high authorities were deeply involved with the secret service.
We appeal to you, Your Eminences, Your Graces, and beg you to analyze once again from the point of view of God's Truth and in all fairness, our objections to the «Documents» and «Comments», so that there are no fatal mistakes, no limits are reached and there is no schism or rupture within our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Your Eminences, Your Graces: if our document does not convince you, please recall the Epistle of the Council of Bishops dated 2002 addressed to the Russian people. It really expresses our own feelings very well! And all of you, Your Eminences and Your Graces, except for Your Graces Agapit and Peter, who were not bishops at that time, have signed this Epistle! How come that now, merely two years after that Epistle you are waiving your beliefs aside and are taking a new path, which is alien to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?
Drafting committee plus 177 signatures of Members of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in South America (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela).
:bump: :shock: It's about time!!!
