Answers to
Current Objections to the Reconciliation of the
-Fr. John
Whiteford
A priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR)
has recently issued an open letter in which he has stated his objections to
reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate.
In his letter, he admits that he might be wrong, and so I take his words
as an invitation to engage his arguments, and hopefully reason with him and
others who have been swayed by similar arguments on the matter.
Argument 1: The
“Were the Moscow
Patriarchate what it pretends to be, and is in effect proclaimed to be by the
proposed “Act
of Canonical Communion” — that is, truly the Orthodox Church of Russia,
then there would be no question: we,
ROCOR, must either resume our place within it, or be canonically established as
a wholly independent body. But,
historically and ecclesiologically, I cannot see this to be the case. But what is today known as the Moscow
Patriarchate has no historical or theological continuity with the Orthodox Church of Russia, the
On what canonical basis can it be asserted that the Moscow
Patriarchate has no continuity with the
There is simply no basis for the assertion that those who
remained in communion with Metropolitan Sergius ceased to be a part of the
Furthermore, ROCOR never claimed to have deposed Metropolitan Sergius or any other bishop of the MP, much less did it ever claim to condemn the entire MP as being outside the Church.
Aside from that, if we were discussing a dispute in a
generic local Church, and group 1 claimed that group 2 was outside the Church,
or illegitimate, and this dispute resulted from some problem that had disrupted
Church order to such an extent that it was no longer obvious what the
legitimate lines of authority in that Church were, how would we expect to see a
canonical resolution to this problem… if the two parties never came to any
agreement on their own? Obviously, the
rest of the Church would have to help resolve the matter. In the case of the MP, did the rest of the
Church ever hold the position that the MP was illegitimate? No.
And if anyone were to dismiss this fact by claiming that all the rest of
the Church has been compromised by Ecumenism, even if that were so, the fact
remains that the rest of the Church did not condemn the MP in the 1930’s, 40’s,
50’s or 60’s… and I don’t think even the Old Calendarists (with the exception of
the Matthewites) would claim that the rest of the Church had fallen into heresy
at that point.
Essentially, the only evidence that can be cited to support
the claim that Metropolitan Sergius ceased to be legitimate is the private
opinions of particular priests and bishops.
But from a canonical standpoint, since when has the mere private
opinions of anyone been sufficient to depose a bishop or anathematize a whole
Church? Does anyone really wish to say
that such opinions are of greater weight than official statements of ROCOR, and
the positions of all the rest of the Orthodox Church since the 1930’s?
The following comments from
Fr. Alexander Lebedeff are instructive here:
“Is the
When this question is brought up, it
immediately begs the question --- if it is not a Church, when did it stop being
a Church?
No one seriously doubts that the
Moscow Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Tikhon was the legitimate canonical
No one seriously doubts that Metropolitan
Peter was the legitimate Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne.
No one seriously doubts that
Metropolitan Sergius was the legitimate Deputy (or Vice) Locum Tenens of the
Patriarchal Throne, according to the instructions of Metropolitan Peter.
So--when did he and his Synod become
**not** the Church?
Certainly not as a result of his
signing the "Declaration" of 1927.
The Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia absolutely did not think so, since it
addressed an Epistle to the Flock in 1933 (six years **after** the
Declaration), where it says:
"We are taking fully into account the extraordinary
difficulties of the position of Metropolitan Sergius, who is now the de facto
head of the Church of Russia, and are aware of the heavy burden of
responsibility for the fate of the latter, which lies upon him. No one,
therefore, has the audacity to accuse him for the mere attempt to enter into
dialogue with the Soviet regime so as to obtain legal standing for the
Certainly the Moscow Patriarchate was
not considered by the Church Abroad to be "not the Church" in 1938,
when the Bishops' Sobor Abroad issued the following resolution:
"DISCUSSED: concelebration with the clergymen of the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.
METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergymen arriving from Russia from this jurisdiction are immediately admitted into prayerful communion, and refers to the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan in his epistle, published in Tserkovnaya Zhizn' [Church Life], that Metropolitan Sergius' sin does not extend to the clergymen under him.
DECREED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful communion and concelebration with clergymen of Metropolitan Sergius."
Now, some say that the Moscow
Patriarchate became "not a Church" from 1943, from the time that
Stalin permitted the restoration of the Patriarchate.
But, ten years later, it is clear that
the Church Abroad did not consider the Moscow Patriarchate to be **not** the
Church. In 1953, at the Bishops' Sobor, Metropolitan Anastassy said the
following:
"Do we recognize in principle the authenticity of the ordinations of today's Patriarch and his bishops? But can we even question them? Then we would have to declare the entire Church without grace. Do we have the audacity to declare her entirely without grace? Until now we have not posed this question so radically. . .
"They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
Argument 2 – the
“The post-Declaration
“Church” was wholly the creation of the Soviet power, conceived to further its
own evil designs. Following in the same
model was the “restoration” of the “patriarchate”, at Stalin’s behest.”
Since the bishops of the MP were not consecrated by Stalin
himself, it is obviously not true that the Synod of Metropolitan Sergius was
“wholly the creation of the Soviet power”.
And how was his synod more the creation of Soviet power than the Synod
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the creation of Islamic power after the fall of
Now, perhaps someone will object that this is an
illegitimate analogy. However, this is
precisely the analogy that
“Did not a similar thing
occur in
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/roca_history.aspx
But did the rest of the
Church ever condemn the Ecumenical Patriarchate for their compromises with the
Turks? No. The rest of the Church understood that the
bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate were doing the best that they could, in
an extremely difficult situation, and that this should be left for God to
judge.
Argument 3 – Only ROCOR and the
“Unless we
engage in Soviet-style rewriting of history (and it seems there are many so
occupied), this history cannot be undone.
What was created was at best a schism (the legitimate Orthodox Church of
Russia continuing within
What is not addressed here is
the fact that most of the
Here is a link to a post from
about 9 years ago, by Dr. Joseph Mclellan, Ph.D, (Senior Lecturer in Slavic
Languages and Literature, Princeton University), in response to a post of mine:
https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind9712C&L=ORTHODOX&P=R5012&D=1&H=0&I=-3&O=D&T=1
And it is simply a fact that
our bishops did not recognize any catacomb bishops in the 80's or 90's. I don't doubt that there were pockets of
catacomb congregations that survived on some level, without bishops... but I
don't think we can speak of a “Church” that has no bishops... since St.
Ignatius of Antioch says that no Church can be called such without Bishops,
priests, and deacons (Trallians 3:1). So
if a Church in
And St. John of Shanghai, who
was well aware of the failings of Metropolitan Sergius, nevertheless went
briefly into communion with Patriarchate Alexei I, when he thought that ROCOR had
ceased to exists after World War II… and so evidently, he believed that they
were a legitimate Church:
“At the end of July last
year we received news that the hierarchs in
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/legacy/stjohnin20thcentury.html
Now those who say that we
cannot reconcile with the MP with Patriarch Alexei II as its head, and with
Vladimir Putin calling the shots in
Argument 4 –
The
“It was a schism
(or far worse) compounded by its later engagement in ecumenism, rightly condemned
by the Anathema proclaimed by our Church.”
The problem with this
assertion is that it ignores what was said about the meaning of the Anathema
against Ecumenism when it was issued, and it also ignores the fact that
Anathemas are not like landmines that blow you up when you step on them. They do not impose themselves on those who
violate them. Anathemas are warnings to
the faithful, and individuals or local Churches are only separated from the
Church by an anathema when a Synod of Bishops with the authority to do so,
pronounces such a verdict on them. The
purpose of an anathema is the salvation of the faithful, not their
damnation. Anathemas guide us to the
truth, and away from error. They are not
legalistic traps, designed to catch the unsuspecting and send them off to hell.
Let’s consider the words of
Metropolitan Vitaly (
“By proclaiming this
anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at
the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local
Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or
the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends
on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local
character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de
facto it has immense significance for the history of the universal
Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale. The place of the
Russian Church Abroad is now plain in the conscience of all the Orthodox.”
-“The ROCOR's Anathema
Against Ecumenism (1983)”, by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_anath.aspx
Aside from the fact that our
anathema against those who hold to the branch theory of the Church was not
applied by our bishops to any specific individuals or local Churches, the
Moscow Patriarchate has joined us in condemning that very same heresy.
“…The so-called
"branch theory", which is connected with the conception referred
to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity
existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totally
unacceptable. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused
by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only
on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between
denominations. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize "the equality of the
denominations". Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite
with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be
overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies
through repentance, conversion and renewal.
Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially
tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because
of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realize that, in spite of all the
differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in
"what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human
passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances
which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the
argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with
which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and
differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors…. It is
inadmissible to introduce relativism into the realm of faith, to limit unity in
faith to a narrow set of necessary truths so that beyond them "freedom in
what is doubtful" may be allowed.”
From “The
Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward Other Christian Confessions”,
which was approved by the All-Russian Sobor of the Moscow Patriachate in August
2000.
No doubt, despite this very
clear and official rejection of the heresy of Ecumenism, there will be those
who will point to individuals in the Moscow Patriarchate who have made
questionable statements or engaged in questionable actions. However, if it is to be argued that we should
wait until the Moscow Patriarchate is a perfect Church, should we not first ask
when the Church in
Anyone who wishes to think
that there was ever a time when things were perfect in the Russian Church
should get their hands of a copy of “The Autobiography of Archpriest Avvakum”,
and read up on the origins of the Old
Believer Schism. The Israelites were
never perfect, the churches in the New Testament were never perfect, and there
has never been a time subsequent to that in which any local Church was
perfect. And yet God mercifully saves
the faithful in the Church, despite all our failings as individuals within her.
Finally, even if it were true
that the Russian Church Outside of Russia had ever condemned the Moscow
Patriarchate, and declared them all to be graceless, this would not prevent us
from reconciling with them, if Church history is any guide to the matter. I can’t make the case better than Fr.
Alexander Lebedeff, and so will simply quote his words here:
“Speaking of
unequivocal conciliar determinations, it is interesting to note what occurred
several years after that completely definitive statement of the Sobor of
Bishops declaring the of Mysteries of those in the Evlogian schism as being
invalid and without grace.
A bit of historical perspective, first.
There was much more
to the Evlogian schism than just the fact of Metropolitan Evlogy breaking away
from the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad and establishing his independent
ecclesiastical organization (which later vacillated several times between
complete independence, submission to the Moscow Patriarchate, and submission to
the Ecumenical Patriarchate).
There were
significant cultural, political, ideological, and theological issues that
separated the two spheres of Russian Orthodoxy in
One was simply cultural bias— the Russian emigres in
Another was
political. Metropolitan Evlogy was absolutely opposed to the Church Abroad
taking a stand on the issue of the restoration of the monarchy in
A third issue had to do with Freemasonry. Metropolitan Evlogy and his church
were considered to be, to a certain extent, under the influence of Masonic
organizations, specifically the YMCA (which continued to be the publisher of
all religious literature put out by the Parisian Exharchate for many decades),
and the RSKhD—the Russian Student Christian Movement.
And finally, there
was a significant theological issue—the fact that the several prominent members
of the faculty of St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris were involved in
the "Sophian Brotherhood" and espoused the heresy of
"Sophianism" — the idea that there was another "female"
hypostasis—namely "Sophia"—the Wisdom of God. This heresy was
analysed by the renowned theologian, Archbishop Seraphim of
Add to this all the fact that there were many erudite supporters of
Metropolitan Evlogy and that some very acrimonious letters and articles were
published by both sides, and it easy to understand the depth of the rift
between the two parts of the
As I had posted
previously, the Sobor of Bishops unanimously and unequivocally declared, in
1927, that Metropolitan Evlogy and his clergy were outside the Church and that
their Mysteries were null and void, and devoid of grace.
But let us see what
happened later.
In 1935, when under the auspices of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, a special
convocation was held in Belgrade with the specific goal of reuniting all of the
separated parts of the Russian Church that were abroad, Metropolitan Evlogy
participated (as did Metropolitan Theophilus from the North American Diocese,
which had also separated from the Synod). When Metropolitan Evlogy agreed to
and signed the Temporary Statutes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia all of the sanctions that had been so unequivocally placed on him and
his clergy just melted away. Set aside were all of the mutual acrimonious
accusations and counter-accusations; set aside was the question of the
restoration of the Romanoff dynasty; set aside was the issue of Masonic
influence; set aside, even, was the question of the Sophianist heresy and the
Orthodoxy of the faculty of St. Sergius Institute.
And, in a special
resolution of the Sobor of Bishops, all Mysteries performed by the Evlogians
while they were in schism were declared to be valid, and all ordinations
performed by him and his vicar bishops were accepted as being valid, as well.
So, this lesson from history teaches us something very important. Metropolitans
Anthony and Anastassy (who both participated in this special convocation) were
very open to any overtures that would heal the rift in the Russian Orthodox
Church—even to the point of nullifying the unequivocal canonical sanctions and
declarations of the absence of grace in the mysteries performed by those in
schism from the Church.
If we read
Archbishop Vitaly's (Maximenko) description of task entrusted him by the Sobor
of Bishops in 1934, we also must come to the conclusion that the Synod so
wished to achieve ecclesiastical unity on this continent, that it was perfectly
willing to gloss over the significant issues that had led to the separation of
the North American Diocese from the rest of the Church Abroad. Archbishop
Vitaly was explicitly told that he was to serve with all of the various
ecclesiastical groupings on this continent, and that the Synod would support
whoever would be elected at an All-American Sobor to head the Church here, no matter what jurisdiction that
newly-elected hierarch would be from.
This bit of
historical perspective clearly demonstrates the willingness of the Synod to
open channels of communication and to forgive and forget past wrongs in order
to reestablish and preserve the unity of the Church.
If the Synod could set aside "yako
ne byvshii" (as if they had never been) absolutely categorical
declarations of the absence of grace among the Evlogians, could in not be
perceived as within the realm of possibility that such compassion could be extended
to the long-suffering Christians of the Church in Russia, especially
considering that no conciliar categorical declaration on the absence of grace
among the Sergianists has ever been made?”
“Is
the Moscow Patriarchate the "Mother Church" of the ROCOR?” by
Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff
See: “Voices
of Reason,” for more information