Response to: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, The Beacon of Light (Revised) by Fr Nikita Grigoriev
Archpriest Nicholas Dalinkiewicz
10 January 2007
Emotions and tensions surrounding the pending Act of
Canonical Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow
Patriarchate are gaining momentum, particularly amongst those of us who oppose
union because the result looks like fate accompli. The non-union group is
pinning its hopes on a document written by Fr Nikita Grigoriev,
instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville
– not so much in expectation of a reversal of outcome but rather as an island
of hope and refuge, and possibly as justification for breaking away from the
united MP-ROCOR. The document is titled: “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, The Beacon of Light (Revised).” The title is preceded by
the description: “A long but excellent rendition of the history of the MP
and
For the sake of rational analysis of Fr Nikita’s paper,
attitudes regarding union will be classified into five categories. What
differentiates one category from another? – Its response to the question: What
is God’s will concerning union? Naturally within any group there will be
varying degrees of intensity of feeling; but be that as it may, these Group
descriptions are adequate for analytical purposes.
|
No |
Group Category (Attitude Concerning |
Response to Question: What is God’s Will? |
|
1 |
Those who
don’t care |
I don’t
care about God’s Will |
|
2 |
Those who
are concerned but do not know where to go and are easily swayed. They rely on
finding the answer by hearing the best arguments |
I don’t
know, but would like to know |
|
3 |
Those
emphatically in favour of union |
God’s
Will, without doubt, is that ROCOR must join MP |
|
4 |
Those
emphatically opposed to union |
God’s
Will, without doubt, is that ROCOR must not join MP |
|
5 |
Those that
are neither opposed to, nor in favour of union, but
are only concerned about the outcome being according to God’s will; in actual
fact, not in mere perception |
I don’t
know but God’s Will will
prevail if that is what we seek collectively. (not knowing God’s Will does not mean
that it is beyond reach) |
Groups 3 and 4 will argue that they too want to do (and
in fact are doing) God’s will; but that is not entirely correct. In reality,
for them God’s will is subservient to their own will, but to push their cause
they equate their will with God’s.
Group 2 would probably be on par with Group 5 in this
regard.
Group 1 is indifferent for the wrong reasons; it is
apathetic not only concerning the Accord but towards Orthodoxy in general.
By its very nature this topic must be a volatile issue
and any Christian response must therefore be neutral in tone, with focus on
facts rather than philosophical predisposition. A calm rational analysis is
required because emotions always produce a dual outcome:
-
They are a barrier to understanding God’s will
-
Emotions always convince us that we are correct, and by virtue of this
correctness, we must be doing God’s will; thus emotions in this situation are
deceitful
Both pro and anti union groups tend to be emotionally
charged and therefore both see themselves as representing God
in this do or die battle. If we belong to either group 3 or 4 we need to
ask ourselves: how do I know that what I want is what God wants? Am I motivated
by Revelation, or Interpretation? If you think it is revelation, then it pays
to also ask yourself: what is it that is so special about me that warrants me receiving such revelation? If conversely it is
interpretation, then how objective is my view, and why is it that my ‘enemy’
brother or sister cannot see what I see? The problem is that the ability to see
things objectively is inversely proportional to the intensity of our feelings
about the topic in question; the more intense our views are, the more we see
only what we want to see, and deny the possibility that truth may prevail on
the other side, at least in part?
Fr Nikita’s publication on the surface presents a
powerful case for no unification, at least in the foreseeable future. To any
unbiased observer, however, this article is slanted quite noticeably, and
statistically speaking, the degree of this slant is a measure of departure from
objectivity. Our intention, in analysing this
paper, is to negate the slope; this will give the impression that we are
pushing the cause for union with
Fr Nikita uses fourteen specific arguments in his paper
to convince the reader that union will be a betrayal of the Russian Orthodox
Church. Instead of considering each argument separately and evaluating the
validity of each one individually from the outset, we will make an overall
observation first and then follow up individually as required.
All arguments presented by Fr Nikita depend on one
fundamental claim, or assertion: that the Moscow Patriarchate is entirely
without grace. If this is true then union would be wrong. On the other hand, if
grace does exist with Moscow Patriarchate, then the issue becomes rather
complex; but irrespective of its complexity, as long as grace exists, the
anti-union group is faced with the dilemma of explaining why members of ROCOR
should be precluded from attending a liturgy where Christ is present. How can
anyone say: do not go where Christ is?
Everything hangs on the premise that
In Argument 6 (below) Fr Nikita points out that
Metropolitan Kyril (also written as Cyril) was senior
to Metropolitan Sergius; and in Argument 7, Metropolitan Kyril
(and other bishops) rejected the Declaration. Argument 9 points out that after
Metropolitan Peter was killed, the Russian Church Abroad commemorated
Metropolitan Kyril, who was the other locum tenens
chosen by Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Kyril was a
highly respected hierarch who played a key role during this tumultuous period;
in terms of seniority he was second to Patriarch Tikhon. Consequently the views
of Metropolitan Kyril are of fundamental importance
in guiding us today, just as they were in his time in steering the Church.
Fortunately we have access to his epistles that are directed at Metropolitan
Sergius. Metropolitan Kyril has been canonised by the Church Abroad, as have been Patriarch
Tikhon and the other martyrs. So if we want to know what God’s will may be
concerning union, what better guidance can we have that hearing the words of a
saint who was directly involved in the conflict and suffered martyrdom?
The Epistles of Metropolitan Cyril of
THE MOST EMINENT of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox
Church after the death of Patriarch Tikhon was, without doubt Metropolitan
Cyril of
His observations on the nature of the Church's unity and
oneness of mind, on the necessity to reject canonical legalism in the Church,
on the question of breaking communion and on the presence or absence of grace
in the Moscow Patriarchate and those who have separated from it, remain very
relevant for our own day.
Epistle No. 1: June 6/19, 1929
Metropolitan Kyril describes
his relationship with Metropolitan Sergius thus:
Therefore, until Metropolitan Sergius abolishes the Synod
which he has established, I cannot acknowledge as obligatory for me to fulfill
a single one of his administrative-ecclesiastical decrees given with the
participation of the so-called Temporary Patriarchal Synod. Such a relationship
to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod I do not understand as a separation
from the part of the Orthodox Church administered by Metropolitan Sergius since
the personal sin of Metropolitan Sergius concerning church
administration does not do harm to the Orthodox dogmatic teaching observed
by this part of the Church also.
I am not separating from anything holy, from anything
that authentically belongs to the Church. I fear only to approach and cling to
that which I recognize as sinful in its origin, and therefore I refrain from
brotherly communion with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors
who are one in mind with him, since I have no other means of accusing a sinning
brother. Therefore, I acknowledge it as a fulfillment of our archpastoral duty for those Archpastors
and all who consider the establishment of the so-called "Temporary
Patriarchal Synod" as wrong, to refrain from communion with
Metropolitan Sergius and those Archpastors who are of
one mind with him. By thus refraining, for my part, I am not in
the least affirming or suspecting any lack of grace in the sacred actions and
Mysteries performed by Sergianists (may the
Lord God preserve us all from such a thought!), but I only underline my
unwillingness and refusal to participate in the sins of others.
Therefore, I will not liturgize
with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors of one
mind with him. But in case of mortal danger, with a peaceful conscience I
will receive Unction and the final prayers from a priest appointed by Sergius
or who submits to the Synod established by him, if there is not present a
priest who shares my relation to Metropolitan Sergius and the so-called
"Temporary Patriarchal Synod."
But in itself such a commemoration of the name of
Metropolitan Sergius cannot be made the responsibility of laymen and should not
serve for them as an obstacle to attending the Divine services and receiving
the Holy Gifts in churches which submit to Metropolitan Sergius, if in the given
locality there is no Orthodox church which preserves unharmed its canonical
relation to the Locum
Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. And to pray for Metropolitan
Sergius, together with other Archpastors and Orthodox
Christians in general (on lists for commemoration at the Proskomedia, molebens, and so forth) is not a sin. This is the duty of
all Orthodox Christians, until a general church excommunication shall declare
the abuse made by Metropolitan Sergius of the church authority entrusted to him
to be a sin unto death. (Matt. 18:15-17; I John 5:16)
Epistle No. 3: October 28-30/November 10-12,
1929
The third epistle is a letter written by Metropolitan Kyril directly to Metropolitan Sergius.
I refrain from liturgizing with
you not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be
actualized at our joint celebration, but because the communion of the Chalice
of the Lord would be to both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our
inward attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church
relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility of offering in
complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise.
Therefore, the whole fullness of my refraining concerns
only you and the hierarchs one in mind with you, but not the
ordinary clergy, and even less laymen. Among the ordinary clergy there are very
few conscious ideologues of your church activity. . .
Epistle No. 4: January, 1934
In his fourth epistle Metropolitan Kyril
explains that the separation within the Church is an administrative matter; it
is not a sacramental issue.
The disorder in the Russian Orthodox Church I view not as
concerning the teaching which She holds, but as
concerning administration.
Epistle No. 5: February, 1934
It is no secret that the Moscow Patriarchate was
infiltrated by imposter clergy during various stages of its existence. Needless
to say, they possessed demonic grace. But not all MP clergy were imposters;
others struggled as much, for the sake of God, as did those who rejected the
Moscow Patriarchate, and many MP clergy were also martyrs, something that Fr
Nikita does not acknowledge – sadly. In any event, Metropolitan Kyril comments on the validity of the Sergianist
mysteries in his fifth epistle.
But the Mysteries performed by Sergianists
who are correctly ordained and not prohibited to serve as priests, are
undoubtedly saving Mysteries for those who receive them with faith, in
simplicity, without deliberations and doubts concerning their efficacy, and who
do not even suspect anything incorrect in the Sergianist
order of the Church.
Summary of St Kyril’s
Epistles
-
Metropolitan Kyril does not view himself as being
separated from the Church administered by Metropolitan Sergius.
-
The separation is about Church administration and in this regard this is a
personal sin of Metropolitan Sergius.
-
Metropolitan Kyril only refrains from communion
with Metropolitan Sergius; to refrain from something does not negate it, but on
the contrary, recognizes implicitly its validity.
-
The single most important statement by Metropolitan Kyril
is about existence of grace: “I am not in the least affirming or suspecting any
lack of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists(may
the Lord God preserve us all from such a thought)”
-
Metropolitan Kyril further confirms the existence
of grace in the sacraments of the
-
To pray for Metropolitan Sergius, together with other Archpastors
and Orthodox Christians in general (on lists for commemoration at the Proskomedia, molebens,
and so forth) is not a sin.
-
Metropolitan Kyril refrains from serving with
Metropolitan Sergius because due to their different understanding of their
church relations, there would be no possibility of performing the liturgy in
complete calmness of spirit.
-
Metropolitan Kyril views the disorder in the
Russian Orthodox Church as being an issue that concerns administration and not
the teaching which the Moscow Patriarchate holds.
St Kyril’s epistles negate
entirely all the arguments put forward by Fr Nikita, so much so that no further
comment is required.
But for the sake of completeness, and because union with
MP is such an emotive issue, we will continue with our analysis.
Historical Views of ROCOR on Grace in MP
Did ROCOR at any stage deny the existence of grace in the
mysteries of the Moscow Patriarchate?
St John Maximovich
Comments (3)
The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states:
"The situation of the Church in
St John Maximovich referred to
the Moscow Patriarchate as the
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Here
MP-ROCOR ACCORD ~ Part II
1990 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (5)
ROCOR has always viewed the separation between MP and
itself as being an administrative one, not spiritual.
The Council of Bishops, in their encyclical dated 9
September 1927, declared: "The free portion of the Church of Russia is
terminating administrative relations with the ecclesiastical administration
in Moscow [i.e., with Metropolitan Sergius and his synod], in view of the
fact that normal relations with it are impossible and because of its
enslavement by the atheist regime, which is depriving it of freedom to act
according to its own will and of freedom to govern the Church in accordance
with the canons."
The 1990 epistle is a direct extension of
Administrative separation has no direct bearing on grace.
Grace departs when clergy or individual branches of established churches
introduce heresy into their teaching, as was the case, for example, with the
split between the Orthodox Church and
In November 1969, Fr Alexander Schmemann
(Dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary) wrote a polemic in the Orthodox
Church (the official publication of the Russian Metropolia
in
Father Alexander fails to distinguish between ‘heresy’ –
theological departure from the Faith – and ‘schism’ – an administrative
rupture. Although heretics are not members of the Church, schismatics
retain their membership (I Const., Canon 6). Thus, violation of canon law which
may, in some instances, lead to schism does not necessarily lead to apostasy.
To break a canon law may be impious, but in itself it is not heretical. (6)
In case we feel that this is merely the personal
interpretation of Fr Micheal Azkoul,
let us look at St Basil the Great has to say.
Heresies is the name
applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the
faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of
ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst
themselves … [Concerning heresies] the question is one involving a difference
of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with
the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be
set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism,
they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church.(7)
St Basil then comments on a specific group of heretics -
the Pepuzeni. For us these comments have value in
that they prescribe how heresies should be handled (as distinct from schismatics).
As touching the Pepuzeni,
therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed
against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned Montanus and the Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comfortor). They
deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify
themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the
Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; accordingly they are thus liable
to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit is unpardonable.(8)
The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius does not involve
heresy, and therefore does not affect the spiritual status of MP!
1994 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (9)
ROCOR bishops considered that already in 1994 it was time
to establish contact with MP to test the water about resolving our differences.
Conscious of our own responsibility before God and men, we,
the hierarchs of the Church of Russia who are free of all outside interference,
propose that the time has come to seek an active contact with all the parts of
the One Russian Orthodox Church, which have been separated from one another on
the strength of historical circumstances.
Lesna Convent,
17/30 November 1994
+ Metropolitan Vitaly
+ Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco
+ Archbishop Alypy
+ Archbishop Laurus
+ Archbishop Lazarus
+ Bishop Benjamin
+ Bishop Seraphim
+ Bishop Cyril
+ Bishop Ambrose
+ Bishop Metrophanes
+ Bishop Hilarion
+ Bishop Eutychius
+ Bishop Valentine
+ Bishop Daniel
This is of particular significance to
1987 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (10)
The 1987 epistle issued by the Synod, under Metropolitan Vitaly (and including Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco) recognised that the Moscow Patriarchate is the Mother
Church, not a title that would have been used if MP was indeed schismatic and
without grace.
The … declaration of Metropolitan Sergius It deprives the
Patriarchate of Moscow of freedom, justifying the total arbitrary rule of the
regime in the affairs of the Church.(subsequently
Patriarch), that the interests
of the Church and the atheistic government are identical, to this day still
forms the basis of their relations.
These are the changes which the faithful in
Let us all rely on the omnipotent help of God, for what
is impossible for men is possible for God, Who worketh wonders. We shall await
the results of the "universal renewal," believing that what is
impossible today may become possible tomorrow.
+Metropolitan Vitaly of Eastern
America and
+Archbishop Antony of
+Archbishop Antony of
+Archbishop Antony of Western America and
+Archbishop Laurus of
+Bishop Alypy of
+Bishop Hilarion of
November 7/20, 1987
The Unity of the Church
by Fr. Michael Pomazansky (11)
Fr Nikita draws the conclusion that at the time that
Metropolitan Sergius signed the Declaration and joined forces with the
Bolsheviks, MP became a schismatic group. Fr Michael Pomazansky,
on the other hand, explains that the process is not that cut and dry; schism,
together with loss of grace, is not something that has the precision of a
mathematical formula, especially when it involves multitudes of innocent
victims.
The Church is one not only inwardly, but also outwardly.
Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the
oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the grace-giving
hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of
canonical order.
The unity of the Church is not violated because of
temporary divisions of a non-dogmatic nature. Differences between Churches
arise frequently out of insufficient or incorrect information. Also, sometimes
a temporary breaking of communion is caused by the personal errors of
individual hierarchs who stand at the head of one or another local Church, or
it is caused by their violation of the canons of the Church, or by the
violation of the submission of one territorial ecclesiastical group to another
in accordance with anciently established tradition. Moreover, life shows us the
possibility of disturbances within a local Church which hinder the normal
communion of other Churches with the given local Church until the outward
manifestation and triumph of the defenders of authentic Orthodox truth.
Finally, the bond between Churches can sometimes be violated for a long time by
political conditions, as has often happened in history. In such cases, the
division touches only outward relations, but does not touch or violate inward
spiritual unity.
In the prayers of the Church are contained petitions for
the ceasing of possible disagreements among the Churches: "Cause discords
to cease in the Church; quickly destroy by the might of Thy Holy Spirit all
uprisings of heresies" (Eucharistic Prayer at the Liturgy of St. Basil the
Great) Endnote
In the 20th century Russian Orthodox Church, a church
administration was formed in 1927 by Metropolitan Sergius (the
Metropolitan Sergius’ Motives
St John Maximovich believed
that, even after Metropolitan Sergius succumbed to the pressures and torment,
he still was aware of ‘content’ of the Declaration and its effect on the
Church. “It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself
believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did
this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus remove
responsibility from himself.” (12)
Metropolitan Sergius, in fact confirms this in a letter
he sent to Metropolitan Agafangel:
[In] a January 1928 letter Sergii
begged Metropolitan Agafangel not to break with him,
to have a little more patience, ‘until it becomes clear where we are leading
the ship of the Church: to a relatively bearable existence in the given
conditions, or to a catastrophe. In another message, he promised that his uncanonical removals and appointments of bishops and other
policies were a temporary expediency that would soon be abandoned once the
church situation had been normalized.” (13)
The Orthodox scholar, Fr John Meyendorff
likewise views this to be the case.
Metropolitan Sergius acted in accordance with his
conscience, in the hope of being able to re-establish some form of
administrative machinery for the Church, then virtually nonexistent, and thus
safeguard the embryo of a church, as it were, for the future. (14)
The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius
What are the actual words of the Declaration?
We wish to be Orthodox, while at the same time recognising the
It is not uncommon in theology and spiritual life to
encounter statements that have multiple meanings; the most obvious example has
been given to us by the Lord Himself in the prayer Our Father: “Give us
this day our daily bread.” The bread here has dual meaning: it refers to Holy
Communion, and it also refers to the normal bread that we eat each day. We
encounter such multiple levels of meaning regularly in the homilies and
commentaries of the holy fathers. At times, ‘prophetic’ statements have been
made historically that were not (fully) understood at the time of their
utterance, even by their author, but the meaning of which became obvious
further in time. We see this in the Gospel of St John [11:47-51]
Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a
council, and were saying: What are we doing? For this man is performing many
signs.
If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in
him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.
But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was a high
priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all,
Nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you
that one man shall die for the people, and that the whole nation should not
perish.’
Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being
high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation.
It so happens that the Declaration of Metropolitan
Sergius also fits this category. Everyone equates the crucial words: “we wish its
joys and successes to be our joys and successes” with the joys and successes of
the communist regime headed by Lenin; specifically the word ‘its’ is taken to
mean the Bolsheviks.
Our capacity to not understand what we see and
hear is such a dominant trait that the Lord was forced to accommodate this
human weakness by teaching in parables.
And He said, unto you it is given to know the mysteries
of the
The problem is not so much that the wording of the
Declaration is ambiguous; it is not. The problem is that people read into the
Declaration what they want it to say. The Declaration does not say that
we wish ‘the joys and successes’ of the Bolsheviks to be our joys and successes.
Such an interpretation is what the communist regime wanted people to
understand, and that, unfortunately, is what happened.
So what does the Declaration say? It says that we wish
the joys and successes of the
Politically the USSR was divided (from 1940 to 1991) into
15 constituent or union republics – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia, Estonia,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Russia, Tadhikistan, Turkmenstan,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan – ostensibly joined in a federal union, but until the
final year or so of the USSR’s existence the republics had little real power.
When one speaks of
The fundamental policy, however, of the Communist party
of the
Use of correct terminology is a must here; hence we will
also refer to Wikipedia for further confirmation. (17)
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 as the
union of Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and
Thus the country
However, in the context of the Declaration, almost
everyone, without exception, interprets the term ‘
However, if we swap the term “Soviet Union” with “
We wish to be Orthodox, while at the same time recognising
If the Declaration was worded this way, with the name
“Soviet Union” replaced with “
Metropolitan Sergius does not say:
We wish to be Orthodox, while at
the same time recognising the Communist party of the
When one considers the predicament that Metropolitan
Sergius was in, one cannot help but conclude that the precise wording of his
Declaration must have involved Divine inspiration. To reiterate, the words
of the Declaration do not refer to the Bolsheviks (as has been assumed by
virtually every person that has ever formed an opinion about the Declaration),
but rather they refer to the country ruled by the Bolsheviks, and as
such the actual Declaration does not betray the Church or the Russian people.
If it was not possible to avoid making a Declaration (in the belief that
the consequences would have otherwise been far worse), then it would be nigh
impossible to come up with better words (words that were least damaging).
Thus the words of the Declaration could not be the reason
for the (subsequent) conflict and violence that continued unabated in one form
or another – the words became the scape-goat.
The explosion of evil rather stemmed from the lies and hatred of God harboured by the (possessed) Communists, combined with the
betrayal of Christ that already existed in the hearts of much of the population
during the period leading up to the Revolution. Consequently the end result
would have been much the same whether the Declaration existed or not.
It should also be noted that the name change from ‘
The fact that Metropolitan Sergius subsequently ‘told
lies’ about the state of the Church, merely reflects his inability to cope with
pressure applied to him, not only in terms of his own personal safety, but the
threat of execution ofpatriarchal117bishops, the menace posed by the
Revisionists, and the welfare of the Church in general. In that situation it is
quite feasible that Metropolitan Sergius also viewed his own proclamations that
followed the Declaration to be lies, which he expected to be viewed as such by
others; hence his own irritation and lack of peace when speaking to opposing
hierarchs.
Metropolitan Sergius, however, was not alone in issuing
statements that were forcefully extracted, or fabricated, by the Bolsheviks.
[On] June 28, 1923, in his first encyclical after his
release … as well as in his encyclical of July 15, the patriarch assured
the Soviet government of his civic loyalty, apologized for his former
anti-Soviet stand and maintained that he had adopted a loyal stance since 1919.
As evidence of this he cited his disagreement with the
[When] Metropolitan Benjamin learned in Petrograd that a
plan was afoot to profane the relics of St Alexander Nevsky,
he sent a delegation to Zinoviev, the president of the local soviet, asking him
to revoke the order, and solemnly promised to suspend any cleric under his
jurisdiction at once if any gave assistance to the Whites. (19)
Local Consequences
Prior to examining the specific arguments used by Fr
Nikita, let us do a local detour. On a number of occasions ROCA (
On the other hand, if Fr Vladimir did not have the grace
of the priesthood, then the
That is the local problem faced by the anti-union
parishioners; one that cannot be ignored. Although we used
Arguments Against
Argument 1
The reason why we can’t ‘join the MP’ is very simple.
They are a schismatic group that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in
1927 under Metropolitan Sergius and to this day remains in that schism. The
fact that they have become very powerful, with the help and support of the
atheistic government, is entirely irrelevant. They are, from their origin and
to this day, a schismatic group that separated from the Church.
Comment
Schism comes in two versions, as explained previously; it
can be due to heresy (the worst kind, that results in departure of the Holy
Spirit), or it can be due to disputes of an administrative nature (where both
groups remain within the Church). Argument 1 fails to recognise
the difference between the two, and therefore erroneously attributes lack of
grace to MP on the grounds that it is separated from the Russian Orthodox
Church. Because the separation is not on heretical grounds, then, as explained
by St Basil the Great, MP remains within the Church.
Furthermore, St John Chrysostom explains in a homily that
in the apostolic era it happened that the Pharisee priesthood was at times
bought; yet despite this corrupt practice, for the sake of the people God
accepted as valid the priestly functions performed by these ‘priests.’
In all its services the holy Church prays: “For the peace
of the whole world, for the welfare of the holy churches of God, and for the
union of all, let us pray to the Lord.” This petition stands in direct
opposition to Argument 1. The normal clichéd response to this observation is:
let ‘them’ come to us; in this case however, that is what ‘they’ are in fact
attempting to do, and so the fact remains that God wants ‘union of all,’ but Fr
Nikita says no.
When the Church prays: “for the union of all,” this
petition can only apply to those who are not in union; otherwise it would be
senseless to petition God to join what is already joined. Logically therefore
this petition is addressed to those who are not united.
Argument 2
It is extremely important to understand what a schism is.
A schism is not a division of the Church into two valid parts that are no
longer in communion with each other.
[The Church] is the body of Christ and as such, it is
indivisible, in as much as the body of Christ is indivisible.
A schism occurs when a group of people leaves the Church
and consequently, breaks communion with the Church.
If the schismatics repent …
then they may be received back into the Church through a special rite of
confession and absolution AND by the reinstatement of The Holy Spirit in
them by the Church. If they persist in their position that is in opposition to
the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of the Church, they remain outside of
the Church.
Comment
As discussed above, this argument is wrong; a
(conventional/administrative) schism is precisely a division of the Church into
two valid parts that are no longer in communion with each other.
Argument 3
From his youth, Met. Sergius was
an extremely ambitious man who was obsessed with power.
When Tuchkov met
with Met. Sergius … Met. Sergius saw a great career
opportunity and Tuchkov saw a chance to create a
schism in the Church.
Most likely [the Declaration] was a joint effort, with
comrade Tuchlov dictating and Met. Sergius
obliging. The end result was that on July 29, 1927 Met Sergius signed
the infamous “Declaration of Met. Sergius” … most importantly it lay the foundation for the creation of nothing less than
what may be rightfully called the Antichrist Orthodox Church.
Comment
Concerning Metropolitan Sergius’ ambitions and obsession
with power the evidence is to the contrary.
St John Maximovich (21) pointed out that: Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], who very
much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple
and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably
never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his
behavior.
The picture painted by Fr Nikita concerning Metropolitan
Sergius’ character is at odds with Metropolitan Anthony’s relationship with
Metropolitan Sergius. St John also explains that rather than being propelled by
ambition and obsession with power, Metropolitan Sergius was indeed concerned
about the welfare of the Russian Orthodox Church, and that he was subsequently
broken by not only threats to himself but also to the Church.
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church
Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan
Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and
banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make
concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in
"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a
matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the
This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which
he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true.
Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian
Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a
few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which
was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan
Sergius issued [the] ... Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in
accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan
Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet
regime.
This document was in complete contradiction with his view
expressed nine months before this, that the
This description by
The Soviet government continued to recognize the
Renovationist schism as the legal Orthodox Church of
Sergii was now under
attack from both sides. … Although Sergii held out
steadfastly against both attacks, they were accompanied by the arrest of 117 of
some 160 Patriarchal bishops [under Patriarch Tikhon] between 1925 and 1927,
and with GPU threats to shoot all of the arrested clerics unless Sergii complied with the GPU policy demands. Beyond a doubt,
it was these combined pressures that eventually forced Sergii
to issue his infamous Declaration of Loyalty in June 1927.
Metropolitan Philaret likewise
confirms this picture. In his “Epistle to Orthodox Bishops and All Who Hold
Dear the Fate of the
The Soviet power succeeded in 1927 in sundering in part
the inner unity of the Church. By confinement in prison, torture, and special
methods it broke the will of the vicar of the patriarchal locum tenens, Metropolitan Sergy,
and secured from him the proclamation of a declaration of the complete loyalty
of the Church to the Soviet power, even to the point where the joys and
successes of the Soviet Union were declared by the Metropolitan to the joys and
successes of the Church, and its failures to be her failures. (23)
Argument 4
This point is so crucial that it cannot be over
emphasized: if a church receives its authority from Satan or through Satan’s
servants, then that church is Satan’s church and not Christ’s.
Comment
Fr Nikita here misses the point entirely. The authority
that the MP received from ‘Satan’ was not spiritual authority concerning its
teaching; the authority referred to the physical restrictions imposed on the
Church – where and under what conditions it could function. Despite satanic
pressure, the Church did not teach heresy in any form.
Argument 5
Patriarch Tikhon … anathematised
the Bolshevik government and all those who collaborate with it in their
attempts to destroy the
Comment
The fallacy with this logic is that it assumes that MP
collaborated with the Bolshevik government in order to destroy the Church (ie to destroy itself); whatever collaboration occurred, its
purpose was not to destroy the Church but to save it. Fr John Meyendorff puts a different slant on the words of the
anathema.
Three months after the October Revolution, in response to
the unbelievably crude and violent initial attacks on the Church, the Patriarch
Tykhon launched a sentence of excommunication against
the “open or disguised enemies of Christ” from his residence in Moscow. (24)
To claim that Metropolitan Sergius was a disguised enemy
of Christ is both wrong and mischievous, as it implies that in his own heart,
he and sided with the communists. It is not possible to conclude without bias
that Patriarch Tikhon’s anathema applied to MP.
Argument 6
Met. Sergius tried to
make that declaration on behalf of the entire
Comment
This statement is true, and it is for this reason that
the effect of the Declaration was local; therefore it could be argued that as a
consequence, it had no binding force on future generations of MP, particularly
those hierarchs and priests who do not accept the Declaration in our time.
Argument 7
But here’s the very crux of the whole thing. The
Comment
As mentioned previously, this interpretation by Fr Nikita
is a personal interpretation that is not shared by others. The fact is that
spiritual schism did not occur, but rather administrative separation.
Argument 8
Met. Sergius never did
repent of his sin of schism and never was received back into the Church again,
as he had been the previous time. [He] also helped to precipitate a totally
ruthless persecution of the Church in order to wipe out any possible
competition and to consolidate his supreme position in this, his new Soviet
church.
NKVD agents would arrive at the residence or jail cell of
a bishop or priest, frequently pointed out to them
by Met. Sergius himself or by one of his accomplices.
All the while the Bolshevik government and
Met. Sergius kept insisting that there is no persecution of
the Church in Soviet
Comment
Fr Nikita is treading on shaky ground here; in order to
prove his assertion, he must be able to refer to specific archival documents
that confirm this claim. Such first-hand documents, however, do not exist! All
available ‘references’ that claim that Metropolitan Sergius had betrayed clergy
by pointing them out to NKVD agents are based entirely on hearsay and/or
interpretations stemming from the fact that priests and bishops did perish
following the Declaration.
In reality, the NKVD knew itself which bishops and
priests posed the greatest danger: the fervent and popular pastors who
commanded the respect and allegiance of the Church people. The Bolsheviks
needed an obedient First Hierarch and Synod in order to move popular
pastors to new sees and parishes where they were not known. (25)
Argument 9
When Met. Peter was killed in prison, the
Comment
Correct. This statement shows the importance of
Metropolitan Kyril, and why it is necessary to pay
attention to what Metropolitan Kyril had to say about
MP. This is why we quoted Metropolitan Kyril’s
epistles at length.
Argument 10
Met. Sergius and his
followers joined the godless government that was persecuting the Church in an
effort to save their own lives [only].
Comment
The evidence discussed previously contradicts this
assertion.
Argument 11
Apostolic succession in the group of bishops
that followed Met. Sergius into schism with the
Comment
This would be the case if the schism involved heresy, but
that’s not what happened, as discussed previously. But supposing Fr Nikita was
right; that would mean that the subsequent bishops (post 1927) would only have
layman status, which poses the following dilemmas:
-
Fr Nikita mentions that MP must repent in order to be brought back into the
fold through a special service of confession and repentance. But how can a
confession and repentance make a layman a priest or bishop? Repentance is not
the same thing as ordination. So if there would be no (re)ordination, then this
means that the original MP ordination was valid.
-
Again, if MP has lacked grace all this time, what does that say about the
millions of marriages and baptisms performed by MP clergy since 1927? Are all
‘married’ people in
Argument 12
Now the MP is teaching that over eighty percent of those
who they call the new martyrs belonged to the group that followed Met. Sergius
and joined the godless government.
Comment
If that is true then such a claim would be nonsensical.
One would expect that this would only be the view of certain individuals, and
not the formal teaching of MP. In any event, it does not impact on the status
of grace within MP.
Argument 13
The
Its mandate has been to keep inviolate and pure the Holy
Orthodox Faith and Tradition, free from any compromise with the spirit of the
world.
Comment
That essentially is true, but unless those of us who
oppose the Accord can demonstrate that this will cease to be the case
with the signing the Accord, then our claim will be seen as lacking substance.
To the ordinary person who is not motivated by politics, or has not experienced
the horrors of life under communism, the ‘beacon of light’ will not be
extinguished with the Accord. This is a fundamental problem that has not been
addressed by Group 4. The difficulty in substantiating such a claim is
that all attempts at proof involve words – that is, the intellect, but this is
manifestly insufficient because when a person enters Church for the correct
reasons, his or her link to God is primarily with the heart. So if prior to
signing the Accord, I felt love for God when in Church - I was at peace, and
just wanted to stay there - why would this change when a piece of paper is
subsequently signed on the other side of the world? If in March 2007 I feel
like I am in Heaven when I attend liturgy, I will feel the same way in June
2007. And if my heart tells me that God has not left (because my feelings have
not changed) then I remain free from any compromise with the spirit of the
world.
That is one side of the coin; now consider the other
side.
Being the beacon of the light and hope in a world
overwhelmed by spiritual darkness and despair has its own cost, measured
not in dollars but in responsibility. There must be no confusion between
carrying the beacon of light and being that light. If truth be told, most ROCOR
faithful not only do not know the difference, but don’t even know that the
light exists. That being the case, just who is it within ROCOR that is deemed
to be the beacon of light? This is a serious question that needs addressing
because those who are ignorant of, or not seriously committed to, keeping inviolate
and pure the Holy Orthodox Faith and Tradition, free from any compromise with
the spirit of the world, will be indistinguishable from the rest of society
that is oblivious to the Holy Orthodox Faith and Tradition. And sad to say,
this describes most Orthodox faithful (who happen to be not very faithful). If
you think this is an exaggeration, just do a little survey of Church
attendances, or see how many adhere to fasting rules. And if you really want to
see how free our youth are from any compromises with the spirit of the world,
just read some of the titles of the music they listen to, and have a chat with
them about drug use and alcohol abuse within Orthodox circles.
If we can somehow still accommodate the youth dilemma
within the beacon of light theory, then we still have an unresolved
problem - us adults! It is one thing to be knowledgeable about Holy Orthodoxy,
it is another to, not only convey this knowledge to a world overwhelmed by
spiritual darkness and despair, but to do so while practicing what we preach.
We readily condemn the MP for siding with the godless
Bolsheviks, but we fail to see what is happening in our own back yard. An
Australian citizen has been held in solitary confinement by the
And to add black icing to the cake, George W Bush has
passed ‘anti-terror’ laws that place him above the laws of the
And we, the ROCOR beacons of light, do nothing. What
then, concerning the Lord’s words: “I was in prison and you did not visit
me,”? Not only did we not visit Him, we allowed this to happen! A faith that is
based merely on words and not deeds is dead.
This one example alone suggests that it may be unwise for
us to pretend that we are God’s chosen witnesses to the world. Perhaps it would
be better if we simply focussed on saving our own
souls, and in so doing, our actions will then assist others who are
like-minded.
Argument 14
[There] are … three great illusions and deceptions of the
MP:
[First is that they are the Russian Orthodox Church;
second is that MP is a bona fide Church]
And the third, they are trying to panic ROCA into
believing that ROCA’s canonical foundation is about
to ‘expire’ unless the
Comment
In November 1935 Metropolitans Anastasy,
Evlogy (Western Europe) and Platon
(USA) all signed the ‘Temporary Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad,’ (27) which plainly states that the present
canonical position is temporary and subject to continued existence of an
atheistic regime in Russia. Even those who are understandably cautious (such as
Fr Ioakim Lapkin, Siberian
Diocese ROCOR) agree that the present regime in
OBSERVATIONS
What has become obvious in this war of words is that few
people are even prepared to read, let alone agree with, what the opposition
says, so it is rather ironical that the MP-ROCOR working parties (who actually are
looking at opposing views), have received relentless criticism.
Because ‘the obvious’ is often not obvious, it needs to
be restated, particularly when emotions dominate. When this happens, it does
not occur to us to even pose the question: What if I am wrong?
We may justify our stance as our God-given right to hold
whatever opinion we want. That is absolutely true, but the problem is that in
the current situation, when we express our opinion forcefully and publicly, and
especially if we have above average status in Orthodox circles, then we become
responsible for those souls who follow us. So we cannot afford to ignore the
possibility that we may be wrong.
Let us then restate the obvious concerning the
Without access to the
·
God allowed grace to continue to exist with MP clergy for the sake of the
innocent victims (and because heresy was not an issue)
·
God deemed it better remove His grace from MP and thereby deny the innocent
victims salvific grace (despite lack of heresy);
which means that their baptisms were invalid; their marriages were invalid,
consequently every ‘married’ couple lived in sin; they had no possibility of
absolution of sins through confession; they had no access to life-saving Holy
Communion; and they had no access to the Church to sustain them in the hour of
desperate need - in short the doors of Heaven were shut. Recall that moment
during liturgy where the Deacon announces: the doors, the doors, in wisdom let
us attend? That refers to the early Christian era where pagans were made to
leave the Church, and the doors were closed after them, so that only the
faithful remained. By insisting that MP was/is without grace, we label all
victims of Soviet persecution as neo-pagans because they have been deprived of
valid baptism, and other holy sacraments. In so doing, we appear to place
greater importance on terminology and compliance with formal practices than on
caring for the masses who hand little or no say in the circumstances they found
themselves in.
In case we still do not understand, in the 50th
psalm, which we recite daily (don’t we?), we say to God:
O Lord,
Thou wilt open my lips, and my mouth shall declare Thy praise.
For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would have given
it; but burnt offerings do not please Thee.
The sacrifice for God is a contrite and humble heart God
will not despise. Then Thou wilt be pleased with the sacrifice of
righteousness, the oblation and burnt offerings; then they will offer calves on
Thine altar.
If a translation is required, what this says is that,
correct processes, procedures and rituals are not acceptable to God if they are
not accompanied by love for fellow man and for God. Christian love demands that
all of God’s children have access to Him, especially those who are persecuted.
The method of access is for God to determine; not us. If the only avenue
happens to be validly ordained clergy within the MP, then, whether we like it
or not, that is how it must be.
Consequently, those of us who emphatically deny
the possibility of grace existing within the MP Church, have three specific,
fundamental problems.
·
We cannot see the difference between the God-hating communists, and those
that were forced to obey them in the physical sense. We wrongly equate the two
·
We refuse to concede that grace is a spiritual quality that can only be
lost through heresy (spiritual corruption), and not through administrative
separation
·
We choose to ignore the instructions and guidance given by the saints
themselves
It is important to realise that
any immoveable stance, be it pro or anti accord, cannot be healthy
because, being immoveable, it can only have validity if it was a direct
revelation from God; but such cannot be the case because God Himself appointed
bishops as sole custodians of the Church, not priests and lay people.
Consequently if the bishops made a mistake on such an important issue as the
proposed Accord, and the correction was to be through Divine revelation, such
revelation would be directed at the bishops, and not via ad hoc groups,
well-meaning but emotionally-charged lay people and priests.
Thus if we are to be honest with ourselves, we must not
ignore valid criticisms of our stance. This of course applies to all
Groups, not just Group 4. It should also be understood that it is not wrong to
hold strong views, be they pro or anti Accord. In fact strong views are
preferred by far to having no views. But this must not occur at the expense of
blocking out God, something that, as mentioned previously, happens when
powerful emotions are given free reign.
We need to be aware of one further point concerning the
role of bishops. Going back to the first Apostolic Council, all major decisions
concerning Church life were the sole responsibility of Bishops. Such decisions
do not, and never did, belong to us. If we disagree with our bishops about
spiritual matters and Church organisation and
administration, there is little room to manoeuvre;
Church canons only permit separation from a bishop if he openly
preaches heresy; or if he has been defrocked or suspended by the Synod. If
neither of these two conditions prevails, then we have no God-given right to
judge the bishops; on the contrary the Canons state that: “Not even the
highest magistrate can hold him to trial, but only a Council or Synod.” (28)
SUMMARY
·
Based on guidance from the Saints themselves, and the Epistles of ROCOR, as
well as applying non-biased clear thinking, it is not possible to conclude that
MP is without grace
·
If MP has grace, then it is not our role to override the God-given
authority of ROCOR bishops to decide if, how, and when, and in what form union
is to occur between MP and ROCOR
·
If we nevertheless choose to defy all this and choose to separate from
ROCOR, then no amount of verbal acrobatics can change the fact that we become
the schismatics
REFERENCES
1.
Perekrestov, Fr P, “The Church’s Helmsman, both
then and now, is the almighty Spirit of God,” - 25 questions regarding the
process of re-establishing the unity of the Russian Church, the IV All-Diaspora
Council, ecumenism, and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
2.
Andreyev I (1982),
3.
St John Maximovich (1974), The
Orthodox Word, No 59, pp 240-241
4.
St John Maximovich (1971), The
Orthodox Word, Vol 7, No 2
5.
Orthodox Life (1990), Vol 40, No 3, pp 23-26
6.
The Orthodox Word, Vol 6, No 3, p 142
7.
The Canonical Epistles, Or, More Expressly, The
Ninety-Two Canons, Of Our Father Among The Saints, Basil The Great Interpreted,
The Rudder, (1957), p 773
8.
Ibid, p 773
9.
Orthodox Life, Vol 44, No 6, pp 7-10
10. <www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/epistle_87.aspx>
11. Pomazansky, Fr M (1994),
Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, pp 234-237
12.
13. Pospielovsky D (1984) The
Russian Church – Under the Soviet Regime 1917 – 1982, St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, New York, Vol 1, pp 186-187
14. Meyendorff J (1981) The
Orthodox Church, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
15. Meyendorff, p 135
16. <www.answers.com/topic/union-of-soviet-socialist-republics>
17. <en.wikipedia.ord/wiki/Soviet_Union>
18. Pospielovsky, p 59
19. Meyendorff, p 130
20. Apostolic Canon 35
21.
22. Pospielovsky, pp 66-67
23. Andreyev, p 566
24. Meyendorff, p 128
25. An eminent Church historian of the period, Archpriest
Nicholas Polsky, is of this opinion. See his book
‘The Canonical Position of the Highest Church Authority in the
26. Parry R (2006) “Shame On Us
All,” Consortiumnews.com, October 18
27. This document is available on the ROCOR website.
28. The Rudder (1957), The Orthodox
Christian Educational Society, p 1015