THE ANATHEMA CLARIFIED DURING THE TIME OF MET.PHILARET

[bogoliubtsy]

Does this, written while Met. Philaret was still Metropolitan, settle the question? Here, we clearly see that the anathema is of a local character and that "sooner or later[all local Churches must] resolve on one side or the other". I'd also like to note that the first paragraph states "The Orthodox Russian Church Abroad, headed at the presenttime by Metropolitan Philaret, confesses itself to be an inseparable part of the historical Russian Church" Not THERussian Church, but one third of it, implying that the other two parts(MP and Catacomb Church) do in fact have Grace as they make up another part of the entire Church.

"The Orthodox Russian Church Abroad, headed at the present time by
Metropolitan Philaret, confesses itself to be an inseparable part of the
historical Russian Church. As a Local Church it has the right to assemble
its own regular sobors and to pronounce resolutions which are completely
obligatory for all her children dispersed throughout the world. Time will
show whether the other Local Churches will accept our decision concerning
Ecumenism, even as in their own time, the decrees of the ten Local
Councils were accepted by all, and were entered into the "Book of the
Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and
the Holy Fathers" of the Ecumenical Church. It is well known to us that
the Local Churches took but mere notice of all of our conciliar decrees
against the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate -- whose hierarchy has fully
submitted itself to the Communist atheist party --and this very fact
caused all of them great spiritual harm. In justifying themselves, the
Local Orthodox Churches have erred in asserting that, it is difficult for
them to analyze all of the internal affairs in Russia, and that all our
ordinances against the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate bear more of a political
than an ecclesiastical character, although it is now clear to all people
of sound reason that the dogma of Communism is precisely atheism and
materialism. As far as Ecumenism is concerned, every Local Church has had
sufficient time over the past one hundred years to study it, and if any
given Local Church bases its teaching and life on the canons of the Holy
Apostles, on the canons of all the Orthodox Councils, then it cannot but
acknowledge the fact that Ecumenism has assembled into one all the
heresies which have ever existed, both past and present, and called this
unity a church. Such a manifestation is already plainly of the Antichrist.

Thus, in proclaiming the Anathema, we have protected our flock from this
apocalyptic temptation, and unintentionally have simultaneously posed a
serious question to the conscience of all the Local Churches, which they
must sooner or later resolve on one side or the other. Their future
spiritual fate in the universal Orthodox Church will depend upon the
resolution of this question. De jure the Anathema which has been
pronounced by us is of a purely local character of the Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad, but de facto it has an immense historical significance
universally, historically and ecclesiastically, precisely because
Ecumenism itself is a heresy of a world-wide scale. This position of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is clearly on the conscience of all the
Orthodox. For us, this is a great cross which the Lord has placed upon us.
But we can be silent no longer, for further silence would be tantamount to
a betrayal of the truth; from which betrayal may the Lord deliver us all.

+Archbishop Vitaly"

[尼古拉前执事]

Does it say one third or one part of three? I thought that The Catacomb Church and ROCOR were traditionally looked at as the 2 parts?

[Seraphim Reeves]

a) Of course it's a local anathema, and it was recognized that it would take time for it to gain "pan-Orthodox" acceptance. I haven't disagreed with this opinion of the anathema; I've only maintained that it is an anathema, and as such has to have some bearing not only on ROCOR itself, but it's relations with others.

b) This document clearly does not recognize the MP, at all. How could it, when it speaks of the MP as a Soviet puppet, that has imbibed heresy? The "parts" of the Russian Church which existed contemporary to that comment, were ROCOR and the Catacomb Church, which ROCOR had always tried to support, both prayerfully and materially whenever possible.

c) The text says that this anathema has been laid upon the conscience of the rest of the world, while also noting that world Orthodoxy has had the better part of a century to examine this issue and come to terms with it - thus the anathema is of historic significance (as the document recognizes), in that now the ball is in the hands of "world Orthodoxy" - in the years that have passed since this statement, it's obvious how "world Orthodoxy" has chosen (keeping in mind that the unia of the Antiochians and the Monophysites occured years after the anathema.)

Upon reflection, I wonder how the defenders of this so called "moderate" position can square their ideas with Patristic teaching, not to mention the teaching of the Imperial/Oecumenical Councils that touch on this matter. If someone is a heretic, a public heretic, no option is given to tolerate their error after they refuse to repent of it. To do such is to invite their poison into one's midst, which is not an option.

Given that the dust has long settled on many of these subjects, who can deny that the "major players" in world Orthodoxy have expressed support for the heresy of ecumenism? Even if one is loath to indulge the discussion of whether or not such groups are graceless, at the very least they (true confessors) are called to severe fraternal ties with such groups. I am amazed that one can speak of "economic" concelebrations with those who are either heretics, or as is more often the case, in communion with heretics - that is like saying there can be economic concelebrations with Uniates, as long as they're "very Orthodox in their own personal beliefs."

Seraphim

[bogoliubtsy]

Put in the context of this Synod decision and others very much like it (If you want I can post those too) I think it becomes clear that the Moscow Patriarchate was always considered a part of the Church.

The Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCA, in September of 1927, which rejected the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and defined the following rule: «The part of the All-Russian Church located abroad must cease all administrative relations with the church administra-tion in Moscow…until restoration of normal relations with Russia and until the liberation of our Church from persecutions by the godless Soviet authorities…The part of the Russian Church that finds itself abroad considers itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the Great Russian Church. It does not separate itself from its Mother Church and does not consider itself autocephalous.

Also, a "personal" thought from Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko in 1953:
First of all, with our former steadfastness we confess our unity with the Mother Church of Russia, now enslaved; our faithfulness to Her historical thousand-year path, and we send to Her our cordial prayerful wishes that She may be freed quickly from the domination of the God-fighters. Without any compromise, we condemn the collaboration of Her current leaders in the USSR with the atheistic communist authorities. But in a like manner, we also condemn all self-created autonomies, separatism, divisions, and independent-mindedness. The essence of our Church is not in divisiveness and seeking power, but in keeping Divine truth in Unity. (Motifs of My Life, p. 71).

All in all, sounds like the MP was considered a part of the Russian Church.

[Daniel]

What about this; ROCOR concidering itself as an inseparable part of the historical Russian Church is another way of saying that they, along with the Catacomb Church, constitute the "historical Russian Church", and that the MP can no longer be concidered apart of the "historical Russian Church" because of its apostasy and betryal. The use of the word inseperable may mean to show that while they are Abroad they remain the Russian Church, having not handed the Russian Church over to the God-hating communists

Just an idea/thought.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Daniel,

What you said is the view I have heard expressed many times. And if you take Seraphim Reeves comments into light, I cannot see how this document is saying anything else.

[ania]

QUOTE: Mother Church of Russia, now enslaved; our faithfulness to Her historical thousand-year path, and we send to Her our cordial prayerful wishes that She may be freed quickly from the domination of the God-fighters. Without any compromise, we condemn the collaboration of Her current leaders in the USSR with the atheistic communist authorities. But in a like manner, we also condemn all self-created autonomies, separatism, divisions, and independent-mindedness.

As the Catacomb Church was catacomb because it never was enslaved, that means the Mother Church of Russia that was enslaved by the godless authorites was infact the MP. So there were/are 3 parts to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Ania