A Call To Sanity

 
"Arguments, like men, are often pretenders." --Plato


 In December of 1986, 30 clergy, 25 parishes, one monastery and one convent in North America left the Russian Church Abroad. Again in early 1987, ROCOR's French Mission, seeing a radical change in ecclesiastical policy also, left the ROCOR, seeking to go under the omophorion of traditionalist bishops in Greece. In November of 1987, yet two more parishes in the United States with their priests left the Russian Church Abroad.

This missive is a call to sanity to those who are capable of rational discourse and do not use the fallacious methods of argument and ad hominem attacks that the new ROCOR and its allies use from time to time.

Why did so many priests (two deans among them) and deacons, men in good standing in the Church and of different backgrounds, all take the path of leaving ROCOR at this time without a canonical release?

Why did two more priests and their parishes, one year later, leave ROCOR?

Why, in 1990, did the catacomb priest and confessor Gury in Russia withdraw from communion with ROCOR and seek out Archbishop Auxentius?

And why, in 1999, did the Hegumen Adrian Oulette leave ROCOR? (He was tonsured a monk by Metropolitan Philaret and served as secretary to Bishop Gregory Grabbe for twenty years at Synod headquarters.)

Why do people continue to leave?

In order to extinguish the light of reason for anyone asking the answer to this question, the new ROCOR and its allies have resorted to attacking one member of this group of clergy. They refer to a fictitious spiritual court against Archimandrite Panteleimon. In actuality the spiritual court never occurred. No documents with the charges or a list of accusers were never presented to the accused, no court dates were set. Certain ROCOR clergy (including the "investigating" bishops) circulated slanderous letters long before the accused even heard about the allegations. The whole process (which extended for almost a year) did not even remotely resemble a canonical spiritual trial. A lawsuit was later initiated by the ROCOR against the Russian Orthodox Church of the Holy Resurrection in Worcester in an attempt to take away its property. During this lawsuit, Bishop Hilarion of the ROCOR first testified untruthfully under oath, and thereafter acknowledged the perjury. What he finally admitted to was that the ROCOR never convened a canonical spiritual court before it suspended priests that left the ROCOR to join the synod of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens. This was recorded in the transcript of the proceedings for that court case and is public record. Similarly, the ROCOR never convened a canonical spiritual court before it issued the slanderous Ukaz or Protocol that they eventually published in Pravoslavnaya Rus.

The Holy Canons direct that when a clergyman is accused of any moral charge, that an immediate investigation must take place and be concluded within two months. All this began after a number of clergy sought from their bishops answers to why an ever-increasing number of doctrinal and canonical violations were occurring in ROCOR.

The message sent to the clergy was clear and the whole methodology of the "trial" was a classic form of an ad hominem attack, an appeal to force. When someone says that you better agree with them, or else you will be mistreated — that is an appeal to force! The traditional Orthodox Christians that wished to remain faithful to the legacy of Metropolitan Anastasy and Metropolitan Philaret would either have to shut up or be eventually forced out; and there were bishops in ROCOR that preferred the latter course for the "Greeks and converts."

All observers of recent Church history know the legacy of Metropolitan Philaret. Through his own personal sanctity and spiritual authority he lead the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in clearly defining the boundaries of the Orthodox Church in this age of confusion. Part of this legacy was the 1983 Anathema against Ecumenism.

The Anathema Against the Heresy of Ecumenism and Its Adherents

To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called branches which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians,

Anathema

 One is free either to take seriously or dismiss this historical pronouncement of the Church. The large group of clergy that exited ROCOR in 1986 takes this anathema very seriously. They could have remained and continued their careers as successful priests in ROCOR, but for reasons of conscience they departed. Their unity is based upon loyalty and devotion to the Faith of our Fathers and not upon personalities. Knowing each other from their years in ROCOR, they shared their concerns over the deviations of the newly renovated Synod. They sought an Archbishop that was of one mind with Metropolitan Philaret, i.e. Archbishop Auxentius of Athens. For those readers who believe that such matters as the anathema of 1983 are secondary or unimportant, that, of course, is their privilege. But we, as clergy and as a people, believe that it is vitally important.

All that is required here is some sanity on this matter and rational thought, and not "straw man" or ad hominem arguments. If anyone should seek to discuss these matters intelligently based on the Holy Councils and Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church, we will be more than glad to respond. No response is made to people who mindlessly spew unfounded slander and gossip, without, in many cases, even knowing the people involved or even the circumstances. Their words and opinions are entirely unfettered by the facts. They can even claim that these clergymen were defrocked for immorality, but the reason given on all the so-called "deposition papers" was, "for disobedience."

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America is an eparchial synod of the True Orthodox Church of Greece. The TOC has communities in Russia, Georgia, and Africa. In North America we are a small but growing Church with over 50 clergy, one monastery for men, one skete for men, and three convents here in North America.

Though we are unworthy, we seek to preserve the confession of Faith of Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Auxentius. Following the example of Saint Mark of Ephesus at the false council of Florence, we state that our confession of faith is founded on the confession of these Orthodox teachers who expounded the Orthodoxy of the Holy Fathers; and only if you can topple them can you topple us.

He that has ears to hear, let him hear.

Sincerely in Christ,

Bishop Moses

PS. For those that wish to read on, there follows a list of the canonical infractions and violations that occurred in ROCOR in 1986 and 1987 compiled by one of the priests, Father Seraphim Johnson, who left that jurisdiction in 1987.
 
 

Excerpt from a letter written by Father Seraphim Johnson to Metropolitan Vitaly in late 1987 that lists the Canonical Infractions of ROCOR in 1986 and 1987

a. Concelebrations. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia is now said to be in full communion with the Serbian and the Jerusalem Patriarchates, even though both are very active in the ecumenical movement. In addition, we have learned of concelebrations with the Finnish Church (which not only uses the New Calendar, but even celebrates Pascha with the non-Orthodox), the Ecumenical Patriarchate (both with Greek parishes in this country and with its Russian priests in Europe), and others. We have heard of parishioners going back and forth to Moscow Patriarchate parishes in Europe with their bishop's blessing. Right here we have seen how, several years ago, the Kursk icon -- the Synod's greatest holy treasure -- came to Washington and was taken by a local Synod priest to the OCA cathedral for a moleben, although we were given no opportunity to have it visit our own parish. Among my parishioners are several who left the Ecumenical Patriarchate; they made written promises, at Bishop Gregory's direction, saying they would not receive the Mysteries in churches of the Patriarchate; they endured family conflicts and separation from friends by leaving their Patriarchate parishes. You can hardly imagine how they have been distressed by concelebrations with the church they left; now they ask why they had to leave, and what can I say? It seems they made a foolish choice and grieved themselves for nothing in the eyes of many of your bishops and priests. You have personally told me not to give Holy Communion to members of other jurisdictions; how can you then permit your clergy to concelebrate with their priests? How does it help bring someone to a correct under-standing of the errors in his church, if he sees your clergy concelebrating with his own?

b. Strange Teaching. We thought we understood the Orthodox Faith and that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was a careful teacher of that Faith. But we have been unsettled by things which have been written in the last six months.
 

1) The teaching in your Nativity Epistle effectively denies the 1983 anathema and states that all the local Orthodox Churches are grace-bearing. It says that the anathema has no general meaning, but only applies to members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia who hold ecumenical views -- for the rest it is only a warning; but that is not what an anathema is. It is the Church's statement that anyone holding those views is cut off from the Church of Christ'. When you cut someone off from the Church, you do not cut them off from just the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but from the whole Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.' And even if we were to grant that it applies only to our Church, how then can members of our Church serve with those condemned by it? At the very least, the members of our Church should follow the direction and "warning" of the anathema. When I read this Epistle to my congregation, the reaction was one of shock; it was only with difficulty that I was able to persuade some of my parishioners not to leave the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia at that moment; several initially doubted that they could continue to receive the Mysteries in our parish as long as it was a part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Those who had come to the Synod from other local Churches came to me in sorrow and asked why they had bothered to leave them, if there was still grace in them. My flock agreed that this was not the Orthodox Faith they had been taught in the past.

2) An amazing ecclesiology has been presented by Fr. Alexander Lebedev in his two Open Letters. I might have been able to dismiss this as his own personal misunderstanding of the Faith, except that you and the other bishops have adopted his letters as "official" answers to those leaving the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. I received my copy of his first letter at the direction of Bishop Hilarion. You and Archbishop Laurus have printed and distributed copies extensively, the Synod of Bishops (as reported in the most recent issue of Tserkovnia Zhizn', the official Synod journal) has publicly gone on record as thanking Fr. Alexander for his letters, and now the second letter has been printed in Orthodox Life, thereby making these letters the public position of your Church. Fr. Alexander offers an ecclesiology which I had known well as an Anglican, but which I never expected to see in the Orthodox Church. He states that in the question of which Churches one is in communion with, each diocese can decide for itself. He says that one diocese can be strict, another lenient, but all can be in the same Church; therefore, the Los Angeles diocese is not in communion with any other local Orthodox Churches; the Midwest diocese is in communion with the Serbs and the Constantinople Patriarchate; your diocese is in communion with some Serbian bishops, but not others (an impossible situation in itself); the Western European diocese is in communion with all local Orthodox Churches. This is not Orthodoxy.' All I can think of when I read such things is the poor Episcopalians: for them, one diocese has women priests, another does not recognize such priests; in one parish the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, while in another it is just a memorial, etc. And now I am told that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia follows the same principle of ecclesiology.

3) In both your Nativity Epistle and Fr. Alexander's letters there is also a novel understanding of "economy." The theological textbooks which I have consulted define economy as a waiving of the strictness of the Church's rules to facilitate the admission of people to the Church and the Mysteries. As Fr. Alexander says, by economy you might admit someone to Holy Communion even though he had not kept the full fast beforehand for some weighty reason. But to turn around and use this as an excuse for concelebrating with those one has in fact anathematized, even if one pretends that the anathema is only a warning, is not acceptable. That does not help to bring anyone to the Church, but rather drives them away and confirms them in their error. Fr. Alexander disingenuously argues that by accepting clergymen from the other local Orthodox Churches, you have acknowledged that those Churches still have grace: but he fails to mention that those clergymen were received without observing the canonical rules, precisely because their churches were considered to be In heresy. It was an act of economy to receive them as priests; but if their churches were truly Orthodox, then you and your bishops have violated canonical procedure in accepting such clergymen without releases from their former bishops and have made yourselves schismatics. The concept of economy does not mean that a priest or bishop can do anything he feels like, although Archbishop Anthony of Geneva says this in a letter to his flock; economy is strictly limited in application and purpose, and the teaching we have seen from you and Fr. Alexander is a novelty with no place in the Orthodox Church.

 Certainly it is possible that we have been misinformed on these points in the past. We have done much reading and study in the last nine months to see if this is so. I have even asked Fr. Alexander for enlightenment on "economy" and for sources for his teaching of it, but have received no reply from him. But whether we are right or wrong, we have concluded that we do not agree with the doctrines being taught now by the Russian Orthodox Church Out-side Russia. Unless we can be shown by something other than invective and unsupported statements that we are in error in our under-standing, we must continue to believe as we have in the past and as we have been taught by your predecessors. c. Admission to the Mysteries in Synod Parishes. We have long been aware that in specific parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the stated policy of the Church in regard to admission to the Mysteries has not been followed. We have seen and heard of cases of non-Synod Orthodox being admitted to the Mysteries, e.g. at Jordanville. This has been particularly distressing when it has involved members of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in America, since in those cases there are explicit prohibitions by the Council of Bishops of such actions. I have found it awkward to have to turn away New-Calendarists in my parish (at your direction, Vladika)1 while I know they will be admitted to Holy Communion at the Russian parish of St. John the Baptist in Washington, D.C. In fact, my parish would be much larger if I had been willing to admit New Calendarists to the Mysteries; it now seems that I have injured my parish in vain by turning them away when I need not have. But now the question of receiving the Mysteries has gone even beyond this. In western Massachusetts there is an open follower and propagandist for the teachings of Apostolos Makrakis, a Greek philosopher who was condemned as a heretic by the Churches of Greece, Russia, and Serbia; Bishop Gregory would not admit this man to membership in the Synod on the grounds that he was a heretic; but his own son testifies that he has been admitted to Holy Communion in the monastery in Jordanville. Additionally, a case has come to light recently of the admission of a Monophysite Copt to Holy Communion in the Synod parish in Houston. This act occurred repeatedly with the knowledge of the priest and also of Bishop Hilarion, who refused to stop it, saying that he could not, since it had been going on for a long time already.

d. Canonical Disorder. As if the above-mentioned items were not sufficient indication of canonical disorder in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, we have had several additional manifestations of this problem.
 

1) After the Synod parishes in both Mount Holly Springs and Atlanta joined the Greek Old Calendar Church, Bishop Hilarion advised those who wished to remain in the Synod to attend parishes of the Orthodox Church in America; this was done despite the prohibition on any communion in prayer or mysteries with the OCA.

2) The Synod had generally maintained cordial relations with Metropolitan Cyprianos of Oropos and Fili in Greece; his views on grace in the New Calendar jurisdictions generally agree with those now being proposed by the Synod. But last spring the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has directed its Greek parish in Thessalonica to join a different Old Calendar jurisdiction, that of Archbishop Chrysostomos. The Synod argues that geographical integrity requires the Greek parish to transfer its allegiance, but neglects to comment on the fact that one member of Archbishop Chrysostomos's synod is Bishop Petros of Astoria, Long Island, New York. Is Bishop Petros to become a member of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia on the same grounds of geographical integrity?

3) The Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos has deposed Metropolitan Cyprianos for Ecumenism because he teaches that the New Calendar churches have grace. How can the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia have entered into communion with this synod (by handing over a parish to it), when you maintain in your teachings and actions that there is certainly full grace in the New Calendar churches? This action has an appearance of opportunism, aimed at preventing the establishment of a hierarchy in North America for those parishes which have left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in recent months

4) In the Second Open Letter of Fr. Alexander Lebedev, published in the March-April 1987 issue of Orthodox Life (Vol. 37, No 2), he quotes with full approval a statement that the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprianos is the only valid Old Calendar hierarchy in Greece and that "with two or three possible exceptions" all other Greek Old Calendar bishops are "an absolutely astonishing collection of erratic cranks, defrocked renegades, self-important gurus, half-baked dabblers in theology, and other characters so bizarre, so fantastic, that, to discover parallels, one would be compelled to draw from the more exotic or comical specimens of fictional literature" [page 411. If this is so, how can you hand over your Greek flock to these latter bishops, ignoring Metropolitan Cyprianos and his "valid" synod? And if this is not the view of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia on the Old Calendar bishops in Greece, why did Archbishop Laurus and Bishop Hilarion publish it in your at least semi-official English-language magazine?

 The end result of all the attempts to explain the issues raised by those who left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in recent months has been confusion and the revelation of heretical and disordered thinking in theology and the administration of the Mysteries of Christ in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

We have contrasted this with what we have seen from those who left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and organized themselves under the omophorion of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens. Certainly there have been human weaknesses, with mistakes made and, sometimes, harsh words spoken; but on this earth we will find no perfection, and who among us could honestly say that he had never said or done anything which he later came to regret? But with these mistakes, we also see a firm commitment to the Orthodox Faith and a clear statement of the dangers of Ecumenism, the latest and most dangerous heresy yet. I am enclosing a copy of the oath which all priests have to sign when they join with Archbishop Auxentius; if only the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia had such an oath and enforced it. Then there would be no question of its opposition to Ecumenism . . .
 
 

LIBELLUS or CONFESSION OF FAITH OF ONE WHO WISHES TO BE UNITED TO THE TRUE ORTHODOX FAITH

WHEREAS,

(1) the introduction of the Gregorian calendar brought disastrous consequences into the liturgical order and harmony of the Church and created a schism;

(2) the acceptance of the secular calendar by the innovators and schismatic hierarchs stands in opposition to the law of God in that, according to Saint Theodore the Studite, "No authority has been given to the hierarchy to transgress in any matter whatsoever that which is the rule, but [it has power only] to continue in that which has been passed down and to follow in the steps of those who have gone before";

(3) the faithful people of God acted in a manner pleasing to God when it rejected this innovation, because, according to Saint Cyprian of Carthage, "He that separates and divides the Church of Christ cannot possess the robe of Christ";

(4) the Pan-Orthodox Councils (such as those of 1583, 1587, and 1593 under the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias the Illustrious, and the Council of 1848 under the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus) have forbidden and condemned the change or alteration of the calendar ("Whoever does not follow the customs of the Church . . . and wishes to follow the newly-devised Paschalion and new Menologion of the ungodly astronomers of the Pope, and sets himself in opposition in all these matters, and wishes to overturn and to destroy the doctrines handed down by our Fathers and the Customs of the Church, let him be under anathema, and let him be outside of the Church of Christ and the Assembly of the Faithful"--the Council of 1583);

(5) the Encyclical of 1920 of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, "To the Churches of Christ Wheresoever They May Be," proclaims that the union with the (heretical) churches of the West is not impeded "by the existing dogmatic differences" and that this union is desirable and seemly, and that one of the first steps towards its accomplishment is "the acceptance of a common calendar so that all the Churches may celebrate the great Christian feasts simultaneously . . .";

(6) the ecumenistic innovation of the calendar change also cultivated the ground for the steps that followed, such as the meeting of Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1964 in Jerusalem, and all the subsequent acts and heretical pronouncements which were made "with bared head";

(7) the "lifting" of the Anathema against the Papacy in 1965 is not a true lifting, in that the Papacy has not renounced its heresies, but, to the contrary, it places under its Anathema even the "Orthodox," according to the dictum of the Fathers, "If anyone does not anathematize all heretics, let his portion be with theirs";

(8) the enrollment of a Church as a member of the World Council of Churches altogether constitutes an acceptance of the Branch Theory and a denial of Orthodox ecclesiology and faith, and the common prayers and pronouncements in themselves constitute a proclamation of heresy;

THEREFORE,

I confess that I reject every ecclesiastical and liturgical relation or association with the ecumenistic churches and those who are in communion with them. I confess and proclaim with the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council: "We follow the ancient traditions of the catholic Church. We keep the institutions of the Fathers. We anathematize those who add anything to or subtract anything from the catholic Church."

I confess that I join and am united to the saving and true Church of the True Orthodox Christians under the jurisdiction of His Beatitude, the Archbishop, kyr kyr Auxentius of Athens and All Greece, under whose spiritual guidance and pastorship I shall be.

Signature Parish Priest

Date (Ecclesiastical / Civil) Parish Church

City and State / Province