March 1/14, 1987
St. Eudokia, Nun-martyr
Dear Fr. Neketas,
Since the time I wrote my first letter to you, I have received many more documents pertaining to the issue of the departure from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of a number of our clergy. Among the documents were the materials in your "Information Packet."
I have read through these materials carefully, looking for a valid justification of your recent actions, but, sadly, could find none.
The documents repeat the accusations of the previous letters, and present a picture that is totally different from the actual situation. Since the "Information Packet" is being widely distributed, it is clear that you could be misleading many people.
It is therefore necessary to speak out again, in a second attempt to shed some light and truth on the matters. As before, I am acting according to my conscience, of my own volition, and have not been directed to do this either by the Synod, or by my own bishop.
The materials you distributed discuss three major issues:
1. The question of ecumenism and the Synod's position on it
2. The question of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Synod's relationship with it
3. The treatment of Fr. Panteleimon and the accusations against him
I would like to address each of these issues in turn.
The most significant portion of the accusations you have leveled against the Synod concern the question of Ecumenism and the Synod's position with regard to it. Although you admit that the Synod's official pronouncements on Ecumenism are correct (and, in fact, serve as the basis of your justification for leaving the Synod), you allege that the individual actions of certain Synod priests and bishops undermine the Synod's stand, and, since these actions seem to go unpunished by the Synod, the Synod is de facto a co-participant in Ecumenical heresy.
The actual situation is far different.
There is no dichotomy between the Synod's position and the actions of the individual clergy. The two are just on different levels. The Synod has the responsibility of setting the general direction of the Church. The individual bishops and clergy have the responsibility of moving their flock in the direction established by the Synod. The actual method by which this goal is accomplished can be different in every individual situation.
An analogy may help you to understand this.
The leader of a group of climbers points out an objective, say, a specific peak that must be reached. In striving for the objective, different climbers may choose different paths. This does not mean that any specific climber is in error, or that the objective established by the leader is not clear.
In like manner the Synod established as one of its objectives that all the Orthodox Christians of the world would recognize the falsehood of Ecumenism and reject it.
It was for this reason that Metropolitan Philaret wrote his Sorrowful Epistles, addressed to the heads of all the autocephalous Orthodox churches. It was for this reason that the Anathema against Ecumenism was proclaimed. And it was for this reason that Metropolitan Vitaly, in his recent Nativity Epistle, expressed the hope that through the Synod's proclamation of the Anathema against Ecumenism we would cause the other local Orthodox churches to stop and think what they were doing.
However, as in the example with the climbers, there may be different paths to this objective. The approach taken by each individual bishop and priest will be different.
This is in total concord with the teaching of the Church, which explicitly tells priests and bishops that they must approach every situation individually.
For example, in the instructions given to a priest on how to perform the Mystery of Penance, he is told to treat every individual differently. He is told to confess clergy differently from laymen, to confess men differently from women, to confess the old differently from the young, the newly-baptized differently from those baptized from birth—in short, to approach every confession individually.
Another example: Although there are clear canonical rules defining the exact penance that is to be meted out for various sins, the priest is explicitly told to use his own judgment and reduce the penance due if he feels it would not achieve the goal of full repentance.
The Canons themselves grant this type of discretion to bishops and priests. For example, there is a Canon which excommunicates monks and nuns who abandon their habit and marry. But the Canon explicitly grants the bishop the right to mitigate the penance if he so wishes:
"If any virgin has dedicated herself to the Lord God, or any men likewise have become monks, let them not be permitted to engage in marriage. If, however, they be found to be doing this, let them be denied communion, and be excluded therefrom. But we have made it a rule that the local Bishop is to have control of kindliness in regard to the treatment of them." (Canon XVI of the 4th, emphasis added)
The commentary on this Canon explains the last sentence of the Canon to mean:
"But let the local Bishop have the power to treat them with philanthropy or kindness, and either mitigate their punishment or to shorten the time of their penance." (The Rudder, p. 262)
It is precisely this type of archpastoral discretion that you would deny, by insisting that all bishops and priests in the Synod strive for the goal of bringing all errant Orthodox Christians back to true Orthodoxy using only the path you deem to be correct, i.e. absolute unbending strictness, without the use of philanthropy or kindness.
On the question of how to deal with a heresy, the Church has always shown that there are different approaches that can be used. Sometimes the approach is very strict. At other times, the approach is quite lenient, and seemingly in direct contradiction of previously established Canons. This seeming contradiction disappears only when one realizes that the Church allows and even encourages discretion in choosing the approach to be used in individual circumstances.
As an example, let us look at the approach used by the Church on a related issue: the question of baptisms performed by heretics.
Apostolic Canon XLVI seems to be absolutely clear and unambiguous on this issue. It reads:
"We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics' Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for "what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath a believer with an infidel?"
At first glance, it would seem that this clear directive would be followed by the Church in all cases. And yet, what do we see?
Canon VIII of the First Ecumenical Council states that heretics called Puritans (after renouncing their heresy) can be received by the Church through penance. Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council lists those heretics that can be received through chrismation: Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Aristeri, Quartodecimans, and Appolinarians. Canon XCV of the Sixth Ecumenical Council states that the heretical Nestorians, Eutychians, Dioscorites, and Severians may be received through penance.
These Canons, by not requiring that the heretics they name be baptized, in effect, seem to accept the baptism of the heretics. Do not these Canons stand in direct contradiction of Apostolic Canon XLVI, which deposes anyone who recognizes a heretic's baptism?
The answer to this question can be found in The Rudder itself.
In the discussion on Apostolic Canon XLVII, we read:
"In the face of what has thus been said one might rightly wonder why the holy Second Ecumenical Council in its seventh Canon, but still more so why the Sixth Ecumenical Council in its ninety-fifth Canon failed to disapprove the baptism of all heretics, in accordance with the Apostolic Canons and St. Cyprian's Synod and all the other great God-bearing Fathers aforementioned whose writings were confirmed and ratified, as we have said, by the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself in its second Canon, whereas, on the contrary, it accepted the baptism of some heretics, but not that of others. In order to have an easily understandable solution of this perplexity there is need that one should know beforehand that two kinds of government and correction are in vogue in the Church of Christ. One kind is called Rigorism; the other kind is called Economy and Moderatism; with which the economists of the Spirit promote the salvation of souls, at times with the one, and at times with the other kind." (The Rudder, p. 70)
When one understands this important concept, then all becomes clear. The Church at some times employs Rigorism, at other times Economy or Moderatism.
The concept of "Economy" in its ecclesiastical sense is not easily understood. The original Greek word "eikonomia" is very difficult to translate into English. The translator of The Rudder explains the related adverb "economically" in this way:
"This term, and the corresponding noun "economy" and the verb "economize," in the peculiar idiom of the Orthodox Church can hardly be said to be translatable into genuine English; as a first approximation they may be taken as signifying something like: "managing a disagreeable set of circumstances with tact and shrewdness, instead of insisting upon precision." (The Rudder, Note of Translator, p. 218)
It is precisely this concept of Economy that you and all the accusers of the Synod refuse to accept. You and your followers insist that all bishops and priests act with absolute precision in all things, and you reject any other path.
You forget that it is up to the bishops to decide when Rigorism should be employed, and when Moderatism or Economy is to be applied instead. In fact, you seem to reject the absolute historical fact that the Church has acted "economically" on issues concerning heretics throughout the entire history of the Church.
Let me ask a simple question: Do you consider the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils to be Orthodox?
If you do, and I think you must, then you must also accept the concept of Economy, since the Canons themselves prove that the Church acted with Economy many times.
How then can you attack the Bishops of the Synod for acting with Economy on the question of the other Orthodox local churches, including the Serbian Church? For it is precisely with Economy that the Synod is approaching the Serbian question. Bishop Hilarion explained this in his letter to you dated March 18/31, 1986:
". . . Our bishops cannot but maintain a feeling of gratitude and love for the Church of Serbia which in difficult times gave our Church shelter and protection. Now, in the face of persecution and under most trying circumstances, the Serbian hierarchs are courageously struggling for the rights of the Church and for the future of its flock. We must not forget how difficult their struggle is and that now is not the time to demand absolute infallibility from these valiant strugglers."
Reading these words, one cannot but be reminded of the definition of Economy presented above: "managing a disagreeable set of circumstances with tact and shrewdness, instead of insisting upon precision."
You must also remember that the Synod of Bishops has as the canonical basis for its existence the fact that it is that part of the local, autocephalous, historical Church of Russia that is temporarily in exile due to the political situation in the Russian homeland.
Because of this, the Russian Orthodox Church in exile must have the ecclesiastical "mind. of the historical Russian Orthodox Church. It is an unquestionable fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has over its 1000-year existence consistently acted with Moderation and Economy on the question of dealing with those souls that have been misled by heretics.
We should remember that although the Roman Catholics were anathematized in 1054, the Russian Orthodox Church, at various times in its history, accepted huge territories containing millions of souls that were under Unia with Rome—without any special formalities.
Historically, the official policy of the Russian Orthodox Church was to accept Roman Catholics through Chrismation—not Baptism. This was not because the Russian Orthodox Church did not consider them to be heretics, but rather it was an expression of Economy.[1]
Let me repeat that I introduced this discussion of the manner of reception of converts not as an issue, but as an example of the use of Economy by the Orthodox Church throughout the ages.
You cannot fault the Synod of Bishops for continuing the age-old tradition of Economy as expressed by the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils and the traditions of the historical Russian Orthodox Church itself.
And it is important to note that the traditions of the various local Orthodox Churches are not the same on these matters. In some Orthodox Churches, tradition has dictated the use of a different approach from that used in others. Again, this does not mean that one approach is correct while another approach is wrong.
We can use another analogy to help explain this.
The objective of all fishermen is the same: to catch fish. But the methods employed by various fishermen are different. Some use a net, while others use a hook and line. The tools are different, while the objective is the same.
In like manner, the bishops of the Church, following the words of our Lord directed to His Apostles to be the "fishers of men," use various tools—among them Rigorism and Economy. Again, the tools are different, while the objective is the same.
The Russian Orthodox Church, throughout its history, has developed a preference for one type of tool, although the other is very much part of its "tool-kit." The Greek Orthodox Church, which developed under a different set of historical circumstances, developed a preference for a different tool. It would be foolish for anyone to insist that only one tool is correct.
But that is exactly what we see happening: Several Synod priests of Greek heritage express the thought that the approach traditionally used by the Greek Orthodox Church, i.e. Rigorism, is the only one that is correct, and then they try to impose it upon the Russian Orthodox Church, which traditionally used another approach. When the Russian Orthodox Church rejects this narrow interpretation, it is accused of heresy.
This is patently unfair. Just as, over the centuries, minor differences in liturgical practice or the cut of vestments have developed between the Russian and Greek Orthodox Churches, so the approach to the treatment of those misled by heretics used by the Churches is also different. We must try to understand that each approach is equally valid, rather than run away and attack with unjustified accusations of heresy.
It is perfectly understandable that the "mind" of the Greek Orthodox Church on these issues would be different from the "mind" of the historical Russian Orthodox Church.
The Greek Orthodox Church emerged from ages of Turkish persecution only in the last century. During the time of the Turks, every method imaginable was used to exterminate the Orthodox faith: from the offer of riches and influence to outright oppression. The ecclesiastical "mind" of the Church under these conditions developed a highly rigoristic approach that was necessary in order to preserve the faith.
In Russia, on the other hand, the situation was very different: The Orthodox faith, even during the Tatar yoke, was never in danger of extinction, and for hundreds of years, Russian territory grew in all directions, which required the Church to spread its missionary work far and wide. The situation with Uniates was also unique, and required a very special approach. Rigorism would not have sufficed, and Moderatism and Economy became the accepted approaches.
It does not make sense to limit the Church to only one approach: both are equally correct, and both have been used by the Church through the ages.
When considering the approach to be used with regard to the current state of World Orthodoxy, we must remember that the situation with ecumenical heresy is much less clear than it was with the ancient heresies. If the ancient Church could apply Economy to those who had been misled by Arian and Nestorian heretics, whose heresies had been denounced by Ecumenical Councils, how much more do we have to apply Economy to those whose leaders have become entangled in the heresy of Ecumenism, when this heresy has not yet settled into the minds of the majority of the faithful, and has been denounced not by an Ecumenical Council, but only by the Synod of Bishops itself?
Let us look once more at the Anathema of 1983, which is being used as the cornerstone of the attacks against the Synod. Here it is:
"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; who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of the 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!"
I ask you to read this Anathema carefully. It establishes the penalty of excommunication for those who knowingly espouse the so-called "branch theory," those who consider the priesthood and mysteries of the heretics to be valid, those who participate in communion with heretics, and those who defend these actions under the pretext of brotherly love.
Now look at the list of the "gross violations" by the Synod again. Are any of our priests or bishops accused of any of these above violations? Who of our bishops has espoused the "branch theory"? Who of our priests has received communion from the Roman Catholics? No one.
What our bishops and priests are being accused of are isolated incidents of concelebration with Serbian clergy, receiving communion from the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and giving communion to Orthodox from new-calendar jurisdictions.
But are the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates not excommunicated by the 1983 anathema because of their participation in the ecumenical movement?
The answer must be an unequivocal no.
An excellent analysis of why this is so was written by John Hudanish, starosta of Our Lady of Kursk Chapel in Woodburn, Oregon, in a letter to Fr. Ephraim of Holy Transfiguration Monastery on December 22/January 4, 1986/7. After restating the text of the 1983 Anathema, John Hudanish writes:
"This is an eloquent condemnation of ecumenism and a clear statement of our Synod s rejection of it. What is not so clear, however, is the fact that this anathema is legislative in nature, rather than judicial, i.e., it is a codification of a theological principle into law, but not a verdict—much less a sentence. In other words, it identifies a specific phenomenon (ecumenism) as a heresy, and prescribes the penalty (Anathema!) for those who embrace and defend it, or "knowingly have communion" with those who do, [2] but it excommunicates no one! It is legislation. It is not judgment. And this is borne out by Metropolitan Vitaly in an article he wrote for "Orthodox Life" (No. 4, 1984, p. 32) while he was still Archbishop of Montreal and Canada. He wrote:
"Time will tell whether or not the other local Churches will adopt our resolution on ecumenism as the acts of the Ten Local Councils were, in their time, entered into the Books of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical Councils. and the Holy Fathers of the Universal Church."
"It is important to understand that since the 1983 anathema was promulgated by our Synod of Bishops, we now have a canonical basis for dealing with ecumenism and its adherents within our midst. But as with all other laws, the penalty prescribed by the 1983 anathema cannot be meted out to anyone without due process. Stated otherwise, before anyone can be excommunicated, there must be a determination of guilt in a canonical trial or synodical investigation. I know you can appreciate this concept because it’s just what you’ve demanded yourself for Fr. Panteleimon.
"Therefore, strictly speaking, neither the Patriarch of Constantinople nor the Patriarch of Jerusalem has been excommunicated by the anathema of 1983, despite the New England clergy's assertions to the contrary. Furthermore, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has not subsequently convened to investigate allegations against either patriarch, nor to anathematize them under the 1983 resolution.
"Why not?! Why hasn't the Synod excommunicated the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem for their transgressions? Well, for one thing, it's a matter of jurisdiction. As Metropolitan Vitaly had written in the aforementioned article:
"The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad. . ."
"No Orthodox body outside the Russian Church Abroad is bound by it, just as the anathema against the three-fingered sign of the cross proclaimed by the Council of the One Hundred Chapters (Moscow, 1552) was not binding on the Greeks at that time. About all our Russian Church Abroad can do is to refrain from concelebrating with or admitting to the Holy Mysteries the clergy and laity of those Orthodox jurisdictions which appear to be involved in the ecumenist heresy. Our bishops have no authority to discipline any but their own." (pp. 8-9)
Metropolitan Vitaly confirmed this as the official view of the Church on the 1983 Anathema in his recent Nativity Epistle. In it he also clearly stated that those individual Synod clergymen who, in isolated incidents, have concelebrated with clergy of ecumenist or new-calendar jurisdictions have done so by economy. In this Epistle, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote:
"We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if invite the local churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church. We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth." (emphasis added)
The documents you are now circulating in defense of the schism of the Boston monastery and its adherents all seem to misunderstand the very basic principle—that the Anathema of 1983 did not excommunicate everyone in world Orthodoxy.
The Synod of Bishops is not an Ecumenical Council, whose decrees would be binding on all Orthodox Churches. Its decisions apply only to the members of the Synod itself.
It is impossible to determine exactly how many Orthodox Christians there are in the world today, because a majority of them arc under Communist oppression, and no accurate figures are available. But assuming that reports in the Soviet press are correct, about half of the population of the Soviet Union is baptized. On this basis, one could assume that there are somewhere in the area of 200 million Orthodox Christians in the world today.
If one were to believe the materials now being circulated by you, one would act the impression that on one day in 1983, some 200 million Orthodox were excommunicated and declared heretics by the action of the Synod's proclamation of the anathema against ecumenism.
One moment they are Orthodox, then—poof!—heretics.
This is nonsense.
The Orthodox Church has always understood that heresy takes centuries to become entrenched in the minds of the faithful, and that in the meantime, the overwhelming majority of the individual believers in a Church do not even know about, much less understand, the questions that are being disputed.
In order to be proclaimed a heretic, a person must consciously accept the heresy and believe in it wholeheartedly, and he must reject all attempts to persuade him to return to the true faith.
The overwhelming majority of the faithful in any of these local churches has never even heard of Ecumenism. How can they be heretics?
I can guarantee that of the 200 million Orthodox in the world today, only several thousand, if that, have ever even heard of the Synod's anathema of 1983. Even more than that, I can guarantee that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Synod church itself have never heard of this Anathema. I am confident that we have many members of the Synod clergy who never heard of it.
How then can we even think of sentencing to excommunication say the entire Serbian Orthodox Church with all its faithful, or any other local Orthodox Church, no matter how wrong their leaders are in tolerating ecumenical activity?
Fr. Neketas! If some elderly Serbian grandmother were to appear in your Church and ask for confession and communion, would you seriously think that she personally embraced the "branch theory" of Ecumenism?
The Synod recognizes the feet that even in the new-calendar jurisdictions there are only a handful of fervent ecumenists—the type who would advocate the "branch theory" or who would encourage receiving sacraments from the non-Orthodox.
Although the Synod deplores all ecumenical activity, and in its publications openly criticizes those who participate in such activities, at the same time the Synod is very cognizant of the feet that there are many among the clergy and laymen of the other jurisdictions (especially in the Serbian Church), who are openly opposed to ecumenism, and who are working to turn the direction of their Churches to be more consistently Orthodox.
Because of this, the Synod is proceeding very carefully and deliberately on this issue. In the beginning, at the time the Synod was organized, the Synod freely concelebrated with all Orthodox jurisdictions. As time passed, and the Synod watched the Eastern Patriarchates being gradually being swept up by modernism and the new calendar, the Synod gradually began to withdraw from these concelebrations, while continuing to call upon these Churches to return to Orthodox strictness. Later, as these Churches lost their discernment to the point that they recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as being the valid Church of Russia, and as the infection of Ecumenism began to spread into these Churches, the Synod withdrew almost completely from any concelebration with them.
The Synod fervently hopes that the leaders of these Churches will recognize their errors, and that they will take steps to correct them. The Synod will continue to call upon these leaders and inspire them to change their direction.
In the meantime, the Synod continues to advocate a measured approach, with each bishop given the responsibility to define exactly how the clergy of his individual diocese should proceed.
Sadly, you and your followers, Fr. Neketas, do not want to understand this measured approach. You demand that the Synod jump ahead and immediately proclaim everyone outside the Synod to be heretics, without trying to approach them with patience, love, and understanding. Our bishops do not agree.
We must remember that it is the responsibility of the bishop of every diocese to establish the various policies which must be followed by his clergy. There is generally a policy concerning those who are eligible to receive the Holy Mysteries, a policy concerning the manner of the reception of converts, a policy on the permissibility of "mixed marriages," and others. These policies can be transmitted to the clergy in writing, or orally. They may even be unstated and just meant to be understood.
If a priest has any question about what the policy is for a specific issue, his responsibility is to turn to his bishop for clarification. If he fails to do this, he is committing an error, and stands in need of correction.
It is precisely this type of correction that was required when you, Fr. Neketas, without turning to your bishop, chose to address an issue of serious concern for the Church in your bulletin.
The letter sent to you by Bishop Hilarion on March 31, 1986, was intended to remind you of your obligation to turn to your bishop for guidance. In it we read:
". . . Your present article on the Serbian Church is a case in point. You assigned to yourself the position of judge and arbiter of a difficult Church question without first consulting your local bishop on this matter. If you had reason to question the stand of our Church on any given ecclesiastical issue or found that some other related matter perplexed you, you should have turned to your diocesan bishop for elucidation and guidance..."
This letter is not a justification of ecumenical heresy. It is an appeal to a clergyman to seek and then follow the guidance of his local bishop. All priests should be encouraged to find out the policies that have been established by their local bishop and then do their best to abide by them.
I assure you, Fr. Neketas, that the standing policy of every diocese in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the question of the eligibility for receiving the Holy Mysteries is the same: any Orthodox Christian is entitled to receive the Mysteries, no matter whether his baptism was performed by a priest of the Synod, or by a priest of any of the local Orthodox churches in the world. This has always been the policy of the Synod Church, as it was the policy of the historical Russian Church throughout the centuries.
The Synod has never made an official pronouncement rejecting the validity of the sacraments of all of the local Orthodox Churches, even if they have become new-calendar or have allowed ecumenical activity to take place.
Metropolitan Vitaly made this clear in his Nativity Epistle, in which we read:
"At the present time, the majority of the local churches are shaken in all their organism by a terrible double blow: the new calendar and ecumenism. But even in this sorrowful state of theirs we do not dare, and may the Lord save us from this, say that they have lost their grace."
And it is a grave error to think that the Synod has ever taught otherwise, no matter what the "Orthodox Christian Witness" may allege.
The proof of this is very simple: The Synod has always accepted clergy ordained by any of these other jurisdictions in full ecclesiastical rank.
The Synod has, throughout its history, accepted clergy from all the established Orthodox local churches. None of them has ever been "re-ordained." We have accepted clergy from the Greek and Syrian Archdioceses, as well as from the OCA, and even from the Moscow Patriarchate (as you are well aware, Fr. Neketas, since one of the most recent clergymen ordained by the Moscow Patriarchate who was accepted by the Synod is your neighbor in Seattle, Fr. Konstantin Tivetsky). [3]
Therefore, if the policy established by individual Synod bishops for their own dioceses is that all Orthodox Christians, no matter what local Orthodox church they may come from, can be admitted to communion, it is because the Synod bishops consider these people to be Orthodox.
Certainly, the bishops do not want people jumping back and forth between the Synod and the other jurisdictions. They would like the faithful to know the difference between the stand of the Synod on major issues such as the calendar, ecumenism, or the Moscow Patriarchate, and the stand of the other jurisdictions. But, bearing this in mind, any Orthodox people coming to the Synod and willing to become members of the Synod Church will be accepted in all our Churches without any question of correcting their baptism or chrismation.
The policy restricting concelebration with clergy from these other jurisdictions [4] exists not because the Synod considers them to have lost their grace, but exists to clearly underline the Synod's position that the leaders of these jurisdictions are directing their flocks on a path that, if not corrected, would eventually lead to the loss of Orthodoxy.
And there is absolutely no difference in the way in which Metropolitan Vitaly views these issues from the way in which these issues were viewed by Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret.
I personally worked closely with Metropolitan Philaret almost from the time of his enthronement. First, I was his cell-attendant. Later, from 1976 to 1982, I was the Secretary of the Diocese of Eastern America and New York, which he headed, and so came into contact with him almost every day. I had many opportunities to speak with him and hear his views on these issues.
I can categorically state that Metropolitan Philaret never considered the sacraments of all the Orthodox jurisdictions to be invalid. He personally concelebrated innumerable times with clergy of the Serbian Patriarchate, as had Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy before him. He openly commemorated the "Holy Eastern Patriarchs' during the Cherubic Hymn at every liturgy he celebrated, as had his predecessors. And, contrary to the assertions recently disseminated, he never reprimanded any bishops or priests for acting with moderation or economy with those from other jurisdictions.
As I pointed out in my previous letter, all this was well known by Fr. Panteleimon throughout the time he was in the Synod—and, knowing this, in the beginning of 1986, he still called the Synod "a real standard of Orthodoxy."
On the question of the validity of the sacraments of other jurisdictions, some of your most virulent adherents seem to be following the teaching of a very radical fringe of old calendarists, who consider the sacraments of all new calendarists to be invalid. None of the hierarchs of the Synod has ever accepted this view.
Your own articles clearly show that you yourself have a different view on this issue. In one of the most recent issues of "The Orthodox Christian Witness," in the discussion of whether the Synod should categorically declare that there is no grace in the other local Orthodox Churches, you write:
"We can agree that such a judgment is a fearful one and is best left to God." (Feb. 16/Mar. 1, 1987, p. 3)
This is precisely what the Synod is teaching. How then can you justify leaving the Synod when your view on this issue corresponds exactly with the Synod's position?
Regarding concelebrations with the new-calendarists one must remember that there is a long-established tradition of this in the Synod, as demonstrated by our First Hierarchs.
I remember reading an article in an old issue of "Orthodox Life," which described the visit of Metropolitan Anastassy to the Holy Cross Theological Academy in Boston. Although I cannot find the article now, I remember that this occurred in 1956 or so. The article told how Metropolitan Anastassy was met at the Academy by the then Greek Archdiocese Bishop of Boston, how they proceeded to the Academy chapel and jointly served a Molieben there. Then Metropolitan Anastassy was given a tour of the classrooms and other facilities, and was the guest of honor at a banquet.
Such concelebrations with new-calendarists were consistent with the official policy of the Synod at the time. Who better than Metropolitan Anastassy would know this, since he was ordained bishop in Moscow back in 1906, and was involved in setting the direction of the Russian Orthodox Church, both in the homeland and abroad, since that time?
While defending the myth you are trying to propagate—of a recent radical change in the Synod's direction—you do not seem to notice that your own arguments often prove exactly the opposite. For example, in your literature, you accuse Archbishop Anthony of Geneva of circulating an earlier epistle of his defining the policy concerning concelebration in his diocese. By mentioning that he was circulating an earlier epistle, you prove that the situation has not radically changed in recent months, and that the current policies are totally consistent with those established in the past.
Our most respected hierarchs were the ones who established these policies.
For example, Archbishop John (Maximovitch) of Blessed Memory held a far less rigoristic view on these issues than you would seem to accept.
I was recently told the following by a parishioner who knew him from the time when Archbishop John was Bishop of Shanghai: One of the parishes there was under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Evlogy of the Western European (Paris) Exarchate (under the Ecumenical Patriarch). Archbishop John paid no mind to this, and, on the parish feast day would just show up there and serve liturgy. He felt that since the parish was a Russian Orthodox parish, and he was the local Russian Orthodox bishop, it was the correct thing to do, no matter whom the parish considered itself to be under.
Another parishioner, from France, was the son of a Paris Exarchate priest. He recalls, that Archbishop John (by then Archbishop of Brussels) frequently visited his father, and that they served together many times. Archbishop John participated in the celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of the episcopal service of Metropolitan Vladimir of the Paris Exarchate. The Russian Scout and Vit'az' Youth Camps had chaplains from both jurisdictions, and Archbishop John frequently served liturgy at the camps with all the clergy participating.
Even on the question of prayer with non-Orthodox, our First Hierarchs showed themselves to hold a broader view.
For example, Metropolitan Anastassy, in 1945, wrote the following:
"When I was in London in 1924, I was invited on one Sunday to be present at a solemn evening service in the famous Cathedral of St. Paul. The massive church (second in size after St. Peter’s in Rome) was overflowing with worshippers. At the end of Vespers, the Dean (the Rector of the church) asked me to give my blessing to his flock, which he introduced with the following words: "Now a bishop of the martyred Russian Church will give you his blessing. Receive it as the sprinkling of the blood of Abel." At these words, the entire congregation fell to their knees. Everyone bowed their heads low, and remained in pious silence even long after I spoke the words of blessing. I will never forget that sight, which deeply shook my soul. My thought at that time unwilled turned with thanks to God for the gift not only to believe, but also to suffer for Him." ("Epistle to the Russian Orthodox People," October, 1945)
How then can you accuse a bishop of the Synod who was present at a "Pan-Orthodox" vesper service, held in an Orthodox church, with no ecumenical participation of non-Orthodox clergy, of being guilty of a "gross violation"?
Let us look once more at these "gross violations" that your recent accusations mention. If we look closely, we will see that the great majority of them concern clergymen who are doing nothing other than following the policies established by their bishops—policies which have been in place for decades.
For example, in the Diocese of Chicago and Detroit, the policy has always permitted clergy of the diocese to concelebrate with clergy of the Serbian Patriarchate with the knowledge and blessing of the diocesan bishop.
How can you find fault with clergy who follow this policy?
In the European dioceses, the policy has always been to allow limited concelebration with clergy of other jurisdictions with the knowledge and blessing of the diocesan bishop.
How can you find fault with clergy who follow this policy?
In Jerusalem, it has always been the policy to allow pilgrims to receive communion from the clergy of the Jerusalem Patriarchate at the Holy Sepulchre.
How can you find fault with clergy who follow this policy?
In essence, therefore, you are accusing clergy of following the guidelines and policies established by their lawful bishops. It would make a lot more sense (if you had nothing better to do) if you would find clergy not following their bishop's guidelines, and, if that gives you so much pleasure, complain about their violations of their promise to uphold their bishop's directives. But, then, you would have to complain about yourselves....
To summarize, your errors are the following:
1. You refuse to find out and accept your bishop's policies and guidelines.
2. You refuse to accept the fact that the Church has always allowed those misled by heretics to be treated with Economy.
3. You refuse to accept the very principle of Economy, and assert that only the Rigoristic approach is valid.
4. You refuse to understand that the Synod must express the "mind. of the historical Russian Orthodox Church.
5. You refuse to understand that the historical Russian Orthodox Church has a thousand year history of applying Economy on matters concerning those misled by heretics.
6. You refuse to understand that the Synod is pursuing a measured course, with the ultimate objective of convincing the leaders of the other Orthodox Churches to denounce ecumenism.
7. You refuse to understand that the Anathema of 1983 did not excommunicate everyone in World Orthodoxy.
8. You refuse to accept that the number of conscious ecumenical heretics in the world is a handful, compared to the hundreds of millions of Orthodox faithful who know nothing of Ecumenism.
9. You refuse to accept the fact that the Synod has never made an official pronouncement declaring all of the sacraments of all of the local Orthodox churches to be invalid.
10. You refuse to understand that you are accusing clergy of "gross violations" of the Canons, when all they are doing is following the policies established by their lawful bishops.
11. You refuse to accept the fact that there has been no change in these policies over the decades.
I ask you to think seriously about these issues. I am confident that if you view them with an open mind, you will realize your errors, and will find that you have unjustly accused the Synod of falling into ecumenical heresy.
The Synod and the Moscow Patriarchate
The documents of the "Information Packet" also present material concerning the relationship of the Russian Synodal Church with the Moscow Patriarchate and attempt to prove that there has been a significant change in this relationship in the recent past.
Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
In support of the accusation that the Synod is softening its position, several items are mentioned. Let us look at these items.
The first is an accusation that the Synod has become very rationalistic, and the result of this nationalism is that the Synod is now more ready to accept the situation in the Soviet Union as an established fact, and so has become more tolerant of the Moscow Patriarchate.
This is categorically false.
As I mentioned above, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is exactly that—the historical, local Russian Orthodox Church temporarily in exile. The Russian Orthodox Church, just as all other Orthodox churches, has been organized on a national basis. (We should remember that the word "nation" in this context transcends the concept of a specific country).
The Synod has parishes in all parts of the world, in dozens of countries. The thread that unites all of these parishes is that they all consider themselves to be part of the historical Church of Russia.
The Synod has the mission of nurturing the hundreds of thousands of souls that left the Russian homeland in the time of great strife and the souls of their descendants. It is an awesome mission—to be responsible for keeping the faith of these souls pure and unadulterated, at a time when all of them live in countries in which the culture is far different from that of old Russia.
One could consider that the Synod has been given a special token by God: to keep the flame of the Russian church burning brightly abroad, at the time when the flame of the church in the homeland has been dimmed by persecution and betrayal.
In the service of Ordination of priests, the Bishop gives the newly-ordained priest a part of the consecrated Body of Christ, with these words (in essence): "Receive this token and keep it whole and undefiled until the great day of judgement, when you will give answer for it before the throne of God."
The eternal Bishop, our Lord Jesus Christ, likewise has given to the Synodal Church a token: a part of the Body of Christ—the Russian Orthodox Church in exile, and has given it the charge to keep the faith of this Church whole and undefiled, until the day when it will have to give an answer for it.
For almost seventy years, through wars and other hardships, the Synod has been carrying out its mission—the preservation of true Orthodoxy, according to the best traditions of the historical Russian Church.
One should not think that this means that the Synod does not have another responsibility—to witness to the world around it the truth of Orthodoxy. God did not disperse the Russian Church around the world without a reason, and so the Synod Church participates in active missionary work wherever it is found.
But one should realize that this missionary aspect of the life of the Synod Church is nothing more than a continuation of the great missionary work of the historical Church of Russia. From the time of the Baptism of Russia, the Russian Church has been actively engaged in missionary work, and has brought countless souls of all nationalities to Christ.
Not only in those territories that were under the control of the Russian state, but in all other areas where it was possible, the Russian Orthodox Church established its missions. We are all familiar with the missions in Alaska and California among the native peoples there. But Russian Orthodox missions flourished also in China, Korea, and Japan.
And so the Synod continues this missionary work to this day, in all countries in which it exists, and in all languages. We have publications of the Synod in English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and many other languages. Countless numbers of converts of all backgrounds have been received by the Church. Many have been ordained to the ranks of its clergy.
But this missionary work is only a part of the Synod's responsibility to preserve true Russian Orthodoxy in the diaspora. The Synod is, and must remain, the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia. If it loses its "Russianness," it loses the canonical justification of its existence.
For this reason, the official language of the Synod is Russian, the courses in its only Theological Seminary are taught in Russian, Russian-language parish schools have been established wherever Synod parishes are found.
This is not an expression of nationalism. It is just reality. It is necessary not only to fulfill the Synod's mission of preserving the Russian Orthodox Church in the diaspora, but also for purposes of simple communication.
When I was a student at Seminary, there were students there from Germany, France, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, and Kenya, in addition to those from the U.S., Canada, England, and Australia. One of the students spoke only German and Russian; another only Spanish and Russian; another only Portuguese and Russian; another—English and Russian. It is clear that the only common language that the Seminary could function in was Russian.
And fluency in Russian was not only necessary for studying at the Seminary—it is really a prerequisite for success as a priest in any of the Russian-speaking parishes of the Synod. There are certainly many older people in our parishes who speak only Russian. If a priest were not able to communicate in Russian, how could he hear their confessions?
This fluency is necessary also for mobility. Priests and bishops can transfer from country to country, and still be able to serve the Church well.
When it is suggested to converts to Orthodoxy that they study the Russian language, this is not an expression of Russian nationalism. It is a reflection of the reality that the overwhelming majority of Orthodox theological literature in the world today can be found in Russian only.
Over the past few centuries, the Russian Church, with its four theological academies and dozens of seminaries, as well as its hundreds of monasteries, published thousands of volumes of Orthodox literature, which would take centuries to translate into any other language.
Even in the diaspora, the Synod Church has published many hundreds of volumes of wonderful Orthodox literature, most of which is unavailable in any other language. For example, only a small portion of the seventeen volumes of Metropolitan Anthony's Life and Works, or of the writings of Metropolitan Anastassy have been translated.
Why should the Synod not inspire those who come to Orthodoxy to partake of these spiritual fruits?
This cannot represent the chauvinistic type of nationalism which is exclusionary and elitist. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has not only welcomed converts of all nationalities, but has ordained clergy of all these nationalities as well—not only priests, but Bishops too. For example, Metropolitan Seraphim of Germany was an ethnic German; Archbishop James of New York was an ethnic American; Bishop Mark, the current Bishop of Germany, is also an ethnic German. We have had among our bishops ethnic Carpatho-Russians, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, Kalmuks, and others. There is absolutely no chauvinistic Russian nationalism in the Synod, and there never has been.
I remember well how some of our older priests, who spoke almost no English, would spend days carefully transliterating the English language wedding service into Russian letters, so that they could perform the service in English.
I also remember how Archbishop Averky of Blessed Memory tried hard to serve in English at the consecration of Sts. Theodore Church in Buffalo. He, as well as most of our bishops, served in Greek when they visited our Greek-speaking parishes.
And so the charge of "Russian Nationalism" now brought against the Synod is totally baseless. Our priests all try to remember the two-fold mission of the Synodal church: to preserve true Orthodoxy according to the best traditions of the Russian Church, and to spread this truth among all the peoples.
It is not a new "militant nationalism," as is alleged, that makes the Synod be concerned with the coming Millenium of the Baptism of Russia—it is rather the recognition by the Synod of its responsibility, as the free part of the historical Church of Russia, to lead the way in preparing for this celebration.
It was strange, in this regard, to see the accusation that the Synod of Bishops is "obsessed" by the coming Millenium celebrations, and that during recent Synod meetings the bishops have been spending most of their time discussing these preparations. Actually, if you want to know, the bishops during the Synod meetings in the recent past have spent most of their time discussing the matter of Fr. Panteleimon.
The accusation that the Synod periodicals have changed their position and are now painting rosy pictures of the situation in the Soviet Union is patently false. The example you give, of a review that appeared in "Pravoslavnaya Rus’" of a lecture given at a recent conference that favorably compared the spiritual fervor of young believers in the Soviet Union with the spiritual malaise of young believers in the U.S. is not a good one.
It should be clear to anyone that the situation described by the lecturer is true: young people in the Soviet Union who risk their futures and maybe their lives by admitting they are believers have to be favorably compared with the often apathetic, disinterested Orthodox youth here in this country. Since this is true, where is the problem?
The periodicals published in the Synod have not changed their position on any aspect of life in the Soviet Union. They continue to decry the persecution of the Orthodox faithful, as they always have, and they continue to denounce the Moscow Patriarchate’s slavish obedience to the Soviet government.
On the other hand, whenever we hear of examples of great courage in the face of Communist oppression, we write about them—as we always have. These examples give inspiration to others throughout the world, and prove that the flame of Orthodoxy has not been totally extinguished, even after seventy years of Soviet persecution.
The accusations against the Synod also claim that there has been a fundamental change in the teaching of the Synod regarding the Catacomb Church. These accusations allege that the Synod now considers the Catacomb Church to be an organic part of the Moscow Patriarchate, and not a separate entity as had been taught before.
This accusation is also false. It reflects nothing more than a misunderstanding of some statements made by several hierarchs of the Synod during the past ten years concerning the fact that the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate is not homogeneous in nature, and can be classified in several categories.
One such classification was presented by Metropolitan Philaret and Bishop Gregory many years ago (this was also recently repeated by Metropolitan Vitaly). The classification was as follows:
One could consider the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate to fall into three categories:
1. Those who are either simply agents of the KGB, sent to spy on and direct the actions of other clergy, or those clergy who without question follow all the directives of the Soviet-controlled hierarchy. These are the active persecutors of the Church and their willing slaves.
2. Those who may disagree in principle with the direction of the Moscow Patriarchate, but who take no actions in violation of its directives. They may, however, try to sincerely teach their flock as best they can, and, for example, may preach good sermons. These are the passive followers, afraid to step out of line, who justify their compromise by saying that at least they are keeping the churches open.
3. Those who either openly or secretly defy the hierarchy, and go outside the bounds imposed on them by holding secret services, and teaching the faithful the truth about the persecuted church. These are the active strugglers who risk their lives and act according to their conscience, even though they are nominally part of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Metropolitan Philaret explained that this third group was in spirit actually part of the Catacomb Church. This, however, cannot be taken to mean that it is the same as the Catacomb Church.
The Synod's position on the Catacomb Church has always been the same. The Catacomb Church is real. It has secret bishops, priests, monks, and nuns. The Synod bishops have always been in contact with it, using channels which cannot be revealed, for fear of endangering the lives of the faithful. How could anyone believe that the Synod could change its position, and suddenly claim that the Catacomb Church doesn't exist?
In recent years, however, more information has appeared concerning clergy in the Moscow Patriarchate who belong to the third group mentioned above.
We found out that there are many priests who perform secret baptisms, weddings, and funerals; who hold secret liturgies in the forest; who climb in hospital windows at night to give communion to the sick; who, in shoe, perform all the priestly functions that are forbidden in the Soviet Union.
We should remember that clergy there are restricted to perform services only in the churches—they may not visit the sick, perform private services outside the church building, or teach children the faith. Any priest doing any of these things is subject to prosecution and sentencing to a term in Siberia, or, more likely, a stay at the local KGB psychiatric institution—a favorite choice of the persecutors of the Church, since the priests can then be subject to drug and shock therapy, and come out broken men.
Priests who, knowing all this, willingly risk all to serve their flock according to their conscience are not tools of the Soviet government—they are heroes of the faith, and so, clearly should be considered in spirit members of the Catacomb Church.
It is very easy for us, sitting here in America, surrounded by comfort to judge those over there, who are faced with enormously difficult choices. How many of us, under the same circumstances, would have the courage to act as these priests do, putting themselves and their families in terrible risk? Our hearts cannot but stretch out to them.
The situation of Fr. Dimitri Dudko is a case in point. Just as Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin did some ten years before, a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate began to speak out openly, and to speak with our voice. He defied the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave sermons and wrote books in which he spoke openly about the persecution of the faithful, about the millions of New Martyrs, and even about the Royal Martyrs.
Many in the Synod could not keep from recognizing this as a significant feat. When they wrote in praise of Fr. Dimitri Dudko, they praised him not as a priest of the Moscow Patriarchate, but as a hero of the spirit. When he was arrested, they acted correctly in asking that prayers should be said for his health. Their worst fears were justified. While in confinement, Fr. Dimitri was broken by his tormentors, whether through drugs or physical torture, we will never know. But he came out, recanted his former statements, and was lost.
It is important to remember that the Synod was acting in a way no different in the mid and late Seventies with regard to Fr. Dimitri Dudko from the way the Synod acted in the mid Sixties when Frs. Eshliman and Yakunin wrote their "Appeal." To imagine that these circumstances could be used ten and twenty years later to prove that the Synod has radically changed since the repose of Metropolitan Philaret is ridiculous.
Please try to understand, Fr. Neketas, that the Synod has a responsibility to closely monitor the situation of the faithful under Soviet oppression. As the only free part of the historical Russian Church, the Synod must act as the focal point for expressing to the whole world the truth about the situation of the Russian Church. When negative things occur, we must speak out about them. When positive things occur, we must speak out about those as well.
And it is strange to hear accusations of "Russian Nationalism" from those who have now tried to encourage others to follow in their schism on the basis of "Greek Nationalism." I have heard it directly from several clergymen of Greek heritage, both those who have broken with the Synod and those who have remained loyal, that appeals were made to them to join the Boston monastery in its decision to leave for reasons of "Greek solidarity." This is the type of nationalism that is dangerous. It invites people to abandon their lawful bishops and their Mother, the Church, for solidarity on the grounds of heritage and culture. Nothing could be further from the teaching of the Church, which appeals to all nations to join it on the path to salvation.
The other issues you bring up: joint moliebens with the OCA and the relationship of the Synod to the Congress of Russian Americans also have no bearing on the question of a change in direction by the Synod.
The policy of the Synod has been and continues to be that no joint services shall be allowed between Synod clergy and clergy of the OCA. If an individual Synod priest at some time violated this policy, it was an error. Errors cannot prove a change in policy has occurred.
The Congress of Russian Americans is not an organization of the Synod. It is an independent political and cultural association dedicated to advancing the standing of Russian Americans in this country. Although some of its prominent members are also members of Synodal parishes, and other prominent members are members of the OCA, this has no bearing on the Church, since the Congress of Russian Americans is not a religious organization.
The Congress of Russian Americans has had some significant achievements for which it has received praise from Synod clergy and hierarchs. Among these are: recognition of the distinction between the words "Russian" and "Soviet"; the declaration in most states and major cities of November 6 (the anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution) as a Day of Sorrow and Non-Reconciliation; and the struggle to defend Professor Samarin from injustice. Why should not the Church greet these accomplishments with praise?
These examples cannot prove that any change has occurred.
The Synod's position on the Moscow Patriarchate is as clear as it has always been: it considers the Moscow Patriarchate to be the visible continuation of the grave errors of Metropolitan Sergius.
The Synod cannot and will not have anything to do with the Moscow Patriarchate and will not recognize its authority as long as the Moscow Patriarchate continues its two great sins: its slavish subservience to the militant atheist government, and its refusal to speak the truth about the persecution of the Church.
On the first question, the Moscow Patriarchate violates the very essence of the Church, which is based on the concept of truth. Our Lord said that there can be no concord of truth with falsehood, as there can be no concord of light with darkness. By making itself subservient to the Godless regime under which it exists, the Moscow Patriarchate is accepting falsehood as its ruling principle. When we remember how strongly the hierarchs of the Russian Church of the past stood up in defense of the Church before those in power (for example, Metropolitan Philip before Tsar Ivan IV or St. Mitrophan before Tsar Peter I) and then see the current hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate calmly spouting the line set by the communist party, we see how far they have gone on the path of falsehood. This slavish obedience to the party line is also the root of the ecumenical adventures of the Moscow Patriarchate, since they are needed by the party for the purpose of international propaganda.
On the second question, the sin of the Moscow Patriarchate is even greater—by denying any persecution of the Church, the Moscow Patriarchate turns its back on the tens of millions of the New Martyrs of Russia. By ignoring the cry of their blood, the Moscow Patriarchate shows itself unworthy of their sacrifice. And by denying this sacrifice and aligning itself with the persecutors of the Church of Christ, the Moscow Patriarchate shares the burden of responsibility for these terrible deeds.
The Synod will never change its views on this. It considers itself the only free voice of the Russian Church, and it will never cease its denunciations of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Synod continues to keep in force the policy of Metropolitan Anastassy forbidding not only joint prayer with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, but even casual contact. But, as declared by Metropolitan Anastassy himself, the final judge of the Moscow Patriarchate can only be a freely convened All-Russian Council, representing all the Bishops in the homeland and abroad, including the voice of all the confessor bishops languishing in Soviet prisons and concentration camps or hiding in secret catacombs. Until such a Council, free of any political pressure, is convened, the Synod will not make any changes in its positions regarding the Moscow Patriarchate.
And so, your errors on the question of the relationship of the Synod to the Moscow Patriarchate are as follows:
1. You refuse to remember that the Orthodox Church is organized on a national basis, and that the Synodal Church is no exception.
2. You refuse to recognize that the Synod is not driven by rabid "Russian nationalism"—its "Russianness" stems from its canonical foundation and its special calling.
3. You refuse to understand that the Synod is the Russian Orthodox Church temporarily in exile.
4. You refuse to recognize that, for this reason, the Synod is responsible for preserving the traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church.
5. You refuse to recognize that the Synod is a global Church, with parishes in all corners of the earth, united by a common heritage and a common mission.
6. You refuse to consider that the missionary aspect of the Synodal Church stems directly from the missionary traditions of the historical Russian Church.
7. You refuse to remember that the Synod welcomes into its ranks and into the ranks of its clergy people of all nationalities.
8. You refuse to admit that you have made a mistake in accusing the Synod of changing its position on the Catacomb Church.
9. You refuse to understand that when our hierarchs speak of those in the "third category" of the Moscow Patriarchate clergy as being in spirit part of the Catacomb Church, this does not mean that the Synod considers the Catacomb Church to be an organic part of the Moscow Patriarchate.
10. You refuse to understand that when the Synod comments favorably on the actions of some heroic clergy under Soviet oppression, it does not signify acceptance of the Moscow Patriarchate.
11. You refuse to recognize that absolutely no change in Synod policy on this issue has ever occurred.
Again, I ask you to think carefully about these issues. I am confident that you will realize that many of the issues you bring up are really decades old.
How you can use them in support of your position that everything changed since the beginning of 1986 is beyond my comprehension.
And how you can accuse the Synod of Russian nationalism when you are appealing to others to join you on the basis of Greek solidarity is impossible for me to understand as well.
On this issue, as before, I will refrain from making any judgment as to the validity of the original accusations against him. My comments will be limited to a response to the accusations against the Synod on the way in which the matter was handled.
Most of the accusations fail to distinguish between an investigation and a trial. This distinction is critical for a correct understanding of the matter. The questions concerning the admissibility of witnesses and the validity of their testimony are questions that can be applied only in the situation of an ecclesiastical trial—they have no bearing on the way in which an investigation is conducted.
We see this even in the civil courts: When suspicion of a wrongdoing surfaces, the legally appointed authorities conduct an investigation to determine whether charges should be brought. There is no stated or implied limit as to the length of time the investigation should take. The investigators are free to pursue whatever direction they choose and are free to interrogate any individuals they see fit—without consideration of whether the information gained will be admissible in a court, or whether the persons questioned would be credible witnesses.
The whole crux of the matter of Fr. Panteleimon is that he left before an ecclesiastical trial could be held. So all the discussions of "due process" have no bearing on the matter at all. Up to the point that Fr. Panteleimon left, the matter was under investigation, and it would be foolish to speculate what the outcome would have been if a trial had been held.
But one thing is certain. The bishops of the Synod had not only the right, but also the responsibility to investigate the charges against Fr. Panteleimon.
There is absolutely no doubt that Fr. Panteleimon is held in great respect by a very large number of our clergy and faithful. But he is not above accountability to his lawful bishops, as are all priests and lay members of the Church.
A fundamental teaching of the Church of Christ is that we must all be accountable for our actions. The bishops of the Church have been endued with the responsibility not only to teach the Word of God, but also to administer the Church, and to hold the shepherds of the flock accountable to them. They have been given the power to administer discipline so that the order of the Church might be maintained.
So that when I hear people say that the accusations against Fr. Panteleimon should never have been investigated by the Synod of Bishops, I realize that these people do not understand one of the basic principles of the Church: that the bishops are, by the nature of their office, granted the right to correct and discipline all of the members of the Church under their direction, and especially the clergy, who are called to live according to a stricter standard.
In the eyes of the Church, the bishop is the rector of every parish in his diocese, and the abbot of every monastery. The individual priests and abbots serve only in his place, and at his will. The bishop has the absolute right to appoint and dismiss clergy. We, who are priests, wear our epitrachelions only with the bishop's blessing. If the bishop tells us to hang up our epitrachelion, we must do so without question.
How could we question this decision, when we are unworthy to stand before the Altar of God? I know myself that I have many sins. What kind of a defense could I give if my bishop treated me with the strictness I deserve, rather than the tolerance he has always shown?
And monasteries are in no way exempt from similar accountability. The Canons clearly point out that monasteries must be subject to their local bishops. Here is what they say:
"As for the Clergymen attached to poorhouses or monasteries, let them remain under the authority of the bishop of the city in question, and not disrespectfully desert their own Bishop, in accordance with the teaching imparted by the holy Fathers. As regards those who dare defy any such formal ruling, in any manner whatever, and who refuse to submit to their own Bishop, in case they are clergymen let them be liable to the penalties prescribed by the Canons, but if they are monks or laymen, let them be excluded from communion." (Canon VIII of the 4th Ecumenical Council)
What was truly astonishing to see in the accusations against the Synod was the accusation that the Synod was interfering in the monastery's right to choose its own abbot, and that this interference was in violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, since the Holy Transfiguration Monastery was incorporated under the laws of the state, and its charter granted it the right to choose its own abbot.
How can anyone who considers himself Orthodox write such nonsense?
The Orthodox Church is governed not by any civil laws established by some state or commonwealth—it is governed according to the Holy Canons and the Traditions passed down from the Holy Fathers.
The tradition clearly defined by the Church since time immemorial has been that there are two ways by which a new abbot is installed at a monastery: either the abbot is appointed directly by the bishop, or the abbot is elected by the brotherhood, and his election is confirmed by the bishop. There is no other way. If the bishop refuses to confirm an abbot elected by the brothers, another must be chosen.
No state laws have any bearing on this. Actually, all this proves is that the Charter of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, as recorded in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is in contradiction with the Canons and established traditions of the Orthodox Church. It is not an error of the bishops that we see here, but an error of the monastery itself. There would have been absolutely no difficulty in so writing the Charter of the monastery that it would be in full accordance with Orthodox tradition, and legally recording it in such a fashion with the state.
Actually, the Canons prescribe even greater authority to the Bishops of the Church: to be the absolute stewards of all Church property. Among the Canons of the Holy Apostles we read the following:
"We command that the Bishop have authority over the property of the Church. For if the precious souls of human beings ought to be entrusted to him, there is little need of any special injunction concerning money; so that everything may be entrusted to be governed in accordance with his authority. . ."(Apostolic Canon XLI)
According to this Canon, the Bishop has the authority to manage all the property of the Church—including the property of all its churches and monasteries. In actuality, the deeds of all our parishes and monasteries should be made out in the name of their local Diocese.
Let me ask you, Fr. Neketas. Have you transferred the deed to your church property to Metropolitans Akakios and Gabriel, in accordance with this teaching of the Holy Canons? If you have not, then I must say "Tsk, tsk, Fr. Neketas! How can you demand strict obedience to the Canons from others, when you fail to obey them yourself?"
In every state, Churches are allowed to incorporate under the Act of Incorporation of their Diocese, which can be set up as a Single-Person Corporation, with all the rights of the corporation vested in the bishop. Such an arrangement is really the only one in keeping with the Canons, and is fully in accord with all existing state laws as well.
Some of your recent materials try to insinuate that the Synod of Bishops wanted by some means to expropriate the assets of the Monastery for personal gain. This type of accusation is not worthy of refutation. If you look at our Bishops, you will sec that none of them is interested in material gain. Even though the Bishops, in accordance with the Canons, legally have control over the assets of our monasteries, convents, and many parishes, there has never been any instance where these assets have been misappropriated. The question is really one of establishing the Bishop's legitimate authority in accordance with the Canons of the Church.
But let us return to the matter of the responsibility of the Synod to investigate all serious accusations against members of its clergy that are brought before it.
We must remember that the accusations were brought not by a single person, but by six individuals who were previously members of the Holy Transfiguration community. In the Scripture we read that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established." (Matt. 18:16). How could the Synod fail to pay attention to the accusations of six individuals (two of whom are priests), who were willing to bring witness before the Cross and Gospel?
And the argument that a monk who leaves a monastery without his Abbot's permission is condemned by the Canons and so is not able to stand as a witness is absolutely invalid.
First, the most ancient monastic traditions allow monks to leave their monastery of their own volition if they feel their soul is harmed. We see this, for example, in the Questions and Answers of St. Nicephorus the Confessor, which have become part of The Rudder:
Question VI: If perchance anyone is tonsured as a Monk at whatever place he may be, and afterwards finds that he is being harmed there as respects his soul and he wishes to depart thence on account of the harm, but receives a prohibitive tether from his Superior not to leave, what ought he himself to do—ignore the harm his soul is suffering, or ignore the Superior s tether?
Answer: He ought first to tell his Superior the cause of the harm he is suffering, and if that harm and the peril incurred by his soul are manifest, he ought to depart thence, and not bother about the Superior's tether. (The Rudder, p. 972-3)
You cannot deny this reasoning, since it is the basis of your own justification for leaving the Synod. You cannot have it both ways. If you claim that clergy can leave their lawful bishop for reasons of piety and injustice, then the same must apply to monks with regard to their abbot.
Second, if you wish to be strict about it, in addition to the Canons that excommunicate those who cause a schism, there are many other Canons that would condemn you, and most of your fellow clergy, and so would keep you from being able to give testimony at an ecclesiastical trial. For example, the same Council of Carthage whose Canons you often quote requires in its 4th Canon that all priests and deacons must be celibate. Since many of you are in direct violation of this Canon, then, following your own reasoning, your testimony would have to be disallowed.
Actually, you must recognize that there are many Canons that reflect the local situation at the time they were written, and that many of them do not apply today. It has always been up to the bishops of the Church to decide how the Canons should be applied. If the Canons were so crystal-clear that every neophyte would have no trouble interpreting them, you wouldn't need bishops to "rightly define the word of truth." But then you would really be very close to Protestants in your ecclesiology, with everyone being an authority unto himself. Instead, why not be Orthodox, and not have the "rational sheep" plotting to usurp the authority of their shepherds?
Some of the materials now. being circulated in defense of Fr. Panteleimon claim that the six accusers are really mentally ill, and so their accusations are not credible.
This is quite an astonishing allegation. If these monks are truly mentally ill, then a very serious problem exists with Fr. Panteleimon's judgment, since he tonsured all of them into the great schema. Surely if they were mentally ill, he should have had the discernment to recognize this during the many years they were novices and rassophors and not allow them to be made great schema monks. The fact that he failed to discern this, if it were true, would in itself be enough to trigger a very serious investigation by the bishops of the Church, even without any accusations at all. The Bishops would certainly not be able to ignore an abbot who, not once or twice, but frequently tonsures into the great schema those who are mentally ill or are pathological liars.
But if you believe the "mental illness" theory, you would have to come to the conclusion that the situation is actually much worse. I understand that over the past 15 years, some 15 monks have left Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Based on the "mental illness" theory, one would have to assume that all or most of these 15 were deranged. Since, during this time, Fr. Panteleimon tonsured a total of about 45 great schema monks, one would have to come to the conclusion that fully one third of those he tonsures are mentally unbalanced—not a very good track record for an Elder considered by some to be prescient.... And, if you were to believe the "mental illness" theory, you would have to wonder just how many more undiscovered lunatics are there still hiding in the monastery?
Regarding Fr. Panteleimon himself, it is certainly true that the Synod received many letters on his behalf, some written by our most prominent clergymen. But these letters, frankly, could have no bearing on the question at hand.
This was not a popularity contest. The issue was a question of the internal management of the monastery, and no one in Seattle or anywhere else who had not been a monk at the monastery was qualified to speak on it.
I must state here that I personally had always had great respect for Fr. Panteleimon. I stayed at the monastery many times over the past twenty years, starting at the time the monastery was still in Jamaica Plains. I brought groups of Seminarians and other youth groups to the monastery, and always enjoyed the hospitality and prayerful atmosphere I found there.
But neither my personal opinions, nor the personal opinions of anyone else have any bearing on the question of whether Fr. Panteleimon should have been investigated. There is no question that the bishops have every right to investigate any of our clergy at any time—and to administer whatever correction might be required.
One issue that will never go away is the fact that Fr. Panteleimon left under suspension. Although the Synod is now being falsely accused of predating the documents of suspension, it should be perfectly clear to any unbiased observer that the decisions of the Synod of Bishops could only have been made at a meeting of the Synod, which took place in Montreal from November 19-21, 1986 (o.s.). This is an undeniable fact. If the decisions made in Montreal were not typed and sent out from the Synod offices in New York until the following week, it does not mean that the decisions were not in force from the time they were made. All Synod resolutions bear the date they were approved, not the date they are mailed. The fact remains: Fr. Panteleimon was suspended on November 20, five days before the monastery officially decided to leave.
Much has been written asking why the investigating bishops did not simply come to the monastery and talk to the monks there. But those who write these words forget that the bishops were in possession of a letter written by Fr. Isaac to one of the accusers in which Fr. Isaac admonishes him (three times) not to speak to anyone of the "ills practiced in the monastery." [5]
If Fr. Isaac enjoined a monk who was no longer in obedience to his abbot not to speak of these "ills," how much stronger do you think the prohibition would be for those under direct obedience to their abbot?
The problem with the analyses that are presented in support of Fr. Panteleimon is that their authors really seem to know very little about how such matters are handled in the Russian Church—as far as I know, none of them has ever been a member of the ecclesiastical court of any of our dioceses. The Canons that are quoted in support of their positions certainly serve as the foundation for Church jurisprudence, but the Church, over the centuries, developed structures to administer ecclesiastical justice that were not yet well-defined at the time the Canons were written.
For example, the Russian Orthodox Church, as did most other Orthodox Churches, developed standing ecclesiastical courts in every diocese that heard all matters that were directed to it by the local bishop. That structure exists in the Synod Church today. There is no more any question of allowing the accused to choose his judges (although the accused is permitted to petition the bishop to replace any of the judges if he feels that there would be a conflict of interest) and the number of judges is also a matter of established practice, rather than absolute law.
On the question of the number of judges required to hear a case brought against a priest, it was interesting to see Canon XII of the Council of Carthage quoted. That Canon states that six bishops should gather to hear charges brought against a priest. It is going to be fascinating to see how the group of clergy that left the Synod will act if one of their number should stand accused of a crime. Where will Bishops Gabriel and Akakios find the requisite six bishops? Does this mean that no ecclesiastical trials against priests will ever be possible in the new alliance? Or do you think that this Canon has to be selectively applied, and only comes into effect when the Synod of Bishops is concerned?
And we should remember that no matter how respected someone may be, it would be foolish to presume that he could be above temptation. If we read the Scriptures, the writings of the Holy Fathers, and the Lives of the Saints, we learn that the holier a person is, the more likely he is to be tempted by the evil one. If Satan dared to tempt even Our Savior, we should not consider anyone to be exempt from such temptation.
John Hudanish, in the letter quoted above, relates his own experience and the words of Fr. Panteleimon himself:
"Nearly three years ago, I mounted a spirited defense on his [Fr. Panteleimon’s] behalf against one of his detractors outside the Synod. When Fr. Panteleimon became aware of it, he called me all the way from Boston to set my mind at ease. He said:
"No man can accuse me unjustly, because even though I may not be guilty of the sins of which I stand accused, nevertheless, I am guilty of many, many secret sins."
"What a beautiful thought! And so conducive to inner peace. But doesn't it apply as well today as it did three years ago?"
"Everything I've been taught since I became Orthodox indicates (hat when a Christian comes under personal attack, and especially when it s undeserved, his response should be silence and his disposition meek. This is the advice I've been given in confession on more than one occasion. I'd have to admit I have heard this advice a lot more frequently than I've seen it put into practice, but speaking for myself, I know how very hard it is to keep silent when you're being maliciously slandered. Nevertheless, wouldn't this be an excellent opportunity to provide the faithful with an example of the kind of meekness that inherits the earth and stores up treasure in haven?" (p. 4)
I, too, personally had an experience that taught me a useful lesson: When I was very small, my mother found something broken in the house, and, despite all my denials, severely punished me. Some time later, she found out that I really had not been to blame. I thought that she would tearfully ask my forgiveness for punishing me unjustly, but she said, "I know you do bad things I never find out about. Let that punishment be for one of those." At the time, I thought that this was horribly unfair. But as I grew, I realized that there was a great lesson to be learned here. If we were totally without sin, then we would be justified in protesting unfair accusations. But since we sin every day of our lives, there is no defense that we could give.
You must also remember to be ever vigilant that you do not create a "cult of personality" around any individual spiritual leader by surrounding him with enthusiastic admirers who consider every one of his words a pearl of wisdom and think his judgment to be infallible. This type of adulation would make it far too easy for him to fall into prelest' and lose true spiritual discernment. Sadly, such cultish tendencies are easy to perceive in the current situation, when one looks at the awe bordering on adoration that some project with regard to Fr. Panteleimon.
How can you tell if you have fallen into this trap of establishing a personality cult? When you find that your mentor has imbued you with the thought that only he knows the proper path, and everyone else is in error, you should know that what has really happened is that you have been led astray. And when you see that the path you are following is leading you into conduct with your hierarchs and you refuse to listen to reason, you should know you have gone too far.
You must remember that Fr. Panteleimon has not shown himself to have perfect judgment in many questions (not just in whom he tonsured into the great schema). Over the past twenty years, he has supported an assortment of Old Calendarist bishops. One year he would squire one of these bishops around the United States and appear before the Synod asking that the Synod establish relations with this bishop or the group he represented. A couple of years later, Fr. Panteleimon would appear with a different bishop, with no explanation as to why his previous choice was now unacceptable. This happened many times. No unbiased observer could deny that Fr. Panteleimon was not "batting 1000" as far as his choice of Old Calendarist bishops goes. With this type of "batting average" one cannot but wonder whether his current choice is any better than his past ones.
To get a better understanding of the real situation of the Old Calendarists, let us listen to the words of one of their official representatives. In a recent issue of "The Orthodox Path," a publication of the True (Old Calendar) Orthodox Church of Greece, Fr. James Thornton, the newly-appointed Dean of their Exarchate in America, writes:
''In recent weeks, in a publication of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, mention is made of the "several Synods of the Old Calendarist movement of Greece." Of course, although we understand the reason for the misstatement, we are obliged to set the record straight: There is only one canonical Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church of True Orthodox Christians and that is the Holy Synod led by His Eminence, Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili. The others, who obviously lack a serious intent, who favor a theology and ecclesiology which reveal quite plainly their sectarian nature, and who have coldly mercenary reasons for calling themselves "Old Calendarists," are simply outside the bounds of canonicity. To state this in another way for our Russian friends: On one side is a canonical Church like their own, with ultimate objectives identical to their own, led by responsible and pious bishops like their own. On the other side (with two or three possible exceptions) is 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." (March-April, 1987, p. 1)
Let us now move on to another serious issue: the question of the accountability of the clergy that broke from the Synod. Orthodox ecclesiastical order requires that priests should be closely directed by their bishops. If the priests fall into error, the bishops must stand ready to correct them. How is this going to be possible, now that you have selected bishops that are ten thousand miles away?
Until now, if one of you were to transgress, your bishop would be right there to correct you, and, if necessary, administer the appropriate punishment. How will this be possible with the new situation? Do you seriously think that Bishops Akakios and Gabriel will be able to give you the same archpastoral care you have received from your Synodal bishops? I think not. How can they even know what is happening in Sioux Falls or in Glendora?
And even if you were to create new bishops to lead your new alliance, their knowledge and experience would never be able to compare favorably with that of the Synod bishops, many of whom have more than thirty years of service as a bishop. Our senior hierarchs are disciples of Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy, and carry on their great tradition. All our hierarchs both senior and junior, form an unbroken chain with the historical Russian Church. The treasures of their knowledge, based on their experience, can never be matched.
It is very important to understand that the concept of responsibility without accountability is a frightening one. If, in the future, some kind of deep mismanagement were to surface at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, would Bishops Gabriel and Akakios have the resources to pursue an investigation and ecclesiastical trial? Would you permit such an investigation to take place?
The impression that all this gives is that you and your followers do not want bishops that can hold you directly accountable for your actions. You seem to want bishops that can serve on parish feast days, give nice sermons, write nice Nativity and Paschal Epistles, and leave you alone. As soon as your bishops act like bishops, and start holding you accountable, you are unhappy, and leave.
This is not Orthodoxy.
In Orthodoxy, it is up to the bishops to guide the direction of the Church. In your new alliance, it seems that such real bishops are not even needed. It is certainly clear that at the various meetings that were held to finalize your plans to abandon the Synod Church, no bishops were present. And, as we find out from the latest issue of the "Orthodox Christian Witness" (Feb. 16/Mar. 1, 1987), you are continuing in the same vein. In this issue, we read:
"Twenty-four clergymen of the newly-formed Holy Orthodox Christian Church in North America met in St. Anne's Orthodox Church in Roslindale, MA, February 16 through 18." (p. 2)
It is clear that no bishop was present at this meeting either, even though its purpose was to make decisions concerning "developing and strengthening our new church." I ask you, Fr. Neketas. When in the history of the Orthodox Church was there ever a situation when priests and deacons—not bishops—met in council to decide the direction of the Church? Even a neophyte would be able to see this as a violation of the most basic principles of the Orthodox Church, which has been established by Christ Himself on a firm hierarchical basis.
To repeat, your errors in this area are:
1. Your refuse to recognize that clergymen are subject to the authority of their local bishop.
2. Your refuse to recognize that the Canons direct that monasteries are also under the authority of their local bishop.
3. Your refuse to understand that the bishop is actually the Rector of every parish and the Abbot of every monastery.
4. Your refuse to understand that "Charters" fled with civil authorities cannot usurp the Canons and tradition of church administration.
5. Your refuse to accept the fact that the bishop is entrusted with the right to administer all Church property.
6. You refuse to remember that, in actuality, none of us can be accused unjustly, since we are all guilty of many hidden sins.
7. You refuse to recognize that you are in danger of creating a "cult of personality" around Fr. Panteleimon.
8. Your refuse to realize that no bishop ten thousand miles away can adequately perform his duties in overseeing parish clergy.
9. You refuse to realize that responsibility without accountability is a very dangerous concept.
10. You refuse to understand that it is up to councils of bishops, not councils of priests and deacons, to set the direction of the Church.
11. You refuse to accept the fact that you are, in reality, creating a sectarian ecclesiastical community, far from established Church order.
Conclusion
The materials currently being distributed in your "Information Packet'" are inaccurate and misleading. Item No. 15, "The Current State of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia" presents a totally different picture of the state of the Synodal Church than the one which exists in reality.
Our Bishops, led by Metropolitan Vitaly, are pursuing exactly the same course as established by Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy, and Philaret. They continue to preserve the precious token given to them by Our Savior: the free part of the historical Russian Church. And they are not burying this token in the ground. They are making it bring fruit a hundred-fold by actively engaging in missionary work throughout the world, bringing countless souls to the knowledge of God's truth.
The other materials you distribute are examples of analyses performed by those not qualified to perform them. Newly-converted and newly-ordained priests and deacons, often lacking any formal theological training, suddenly become "scholars" and "experts" in Canon law. These self-proclaimed "scholars" do not even know Russian, and so are unable to even read the voluminous material published over the past seventy years that reflects the true state of the Synodal Church. These "experts" even presume to write treatises on how the bishops of the Church should administer ecclesiastical justice—even though these "experts" would not know an ecclesiastical court from a tennis court.
No reasonable person should be misled by this material. There is no comparison between the knowledge and experience of our bishops and senior clergy and the knowledge and experience of these new-found "experts." And their motivation is not pure. They are publishing these materials after the fact, as a justification of their actions. The bias of these materials is evident on every page.
The tone of many of these documents is patently offensive. Their authors (most of whom are clergymen) seem to forget that such a tone in communications to a bishop or regarding bishops is in itself a violation of the Canons. For example, the 6th Canon of the Nomocanon (Book of Canons), published in the Slavonic Greater Book of Needs, states:
"If a cleric reproaches a bishop to his face, let him be deposed."
This Canon parallels another: Canon 121 of the Nomocanon, which states:
"It is not meet that a layman reproach a priest, nor strike him, nor revile him, nor slander him, nor rebuke him to his face, even if it be true. If he should presume to do this, let the layman be anathematized, let him be excommunicated from the Church, for he is cut off from the Holy Trinity, and is sent to the place of Judas. For it is written: 'thou shalt not speak ill to thy people’s ruler.’"
It is this offensive tone in your communications with your bishops, as much as anything else, that makes it clear that you have lost your original objective—true Orthodoxy. We watch with sadness as you, not as rational sheep, but as irrational mice, now go marching off to the tune of your Pied Piper Elder to found your new "Church of the Latter-Day Pharisees." You fail to see that this path leads to the abyss of perdition.
An unbiased observer would not fail to see this, just as the unbiased observer would not fail to see that during the past year a very well-orchestrated action was being carried out by those who wished to discredit the Synod. Many phone calls were made in order to set this plan in motion and many letters were written. Certain clergymen were assigned the task of hounding the Metropolitan wherever he went. At every lecture and conference they were to ask him questions about Serbian concelebrations—as if this were the only issue that concerned the Church! Voluminous letters were dispatched to the Synod at such a rate that it would not have been humanly possible for the Metropolitan to answer them—giving the enemies of the Church an excuse to reproach him for his failure to respond immediately. Every effort was made to sow discord and divisiveness among the clergy and the laity of the Church, and especially to confuse those who were newly-converted. The results of this campaign could make only the detractors of the Synod happy.
These detractors of the Synod are many: the Soviet government and its handmaiden, the Moscow Patriarchate, the ecumenists and modernists in World Orthodoxy; and even society itself, which cannot stand to see the emptiness of its worldly pursuits denounced by a Church that calls for people to return to the true path of Christ.
You and your followers have now joined these detractors of the Synod. It is truly sad, that at the time when the Church could most use your talents and dedication, in working together to further the preservation and spread of true Orthodoxy, you have decided to abandon the Church and go your own way.
Some of your materials convey the impression that you are leaving because you realized that you are no longer wanted. This is not true. The Synod wants everyone of you who have left. The Church wants you to continue your labors in the harvest of Christ—not in schism, which leads to perdition, but in full accord with your lawful bishops. These bishops have not abandoned Orthodoxy, as you wrongfully assert. If you look at them closely, you will see that they are truly pious men, trying their best, with God's help, to shepherd the flock according to God's Word.
Look at them. Then look at the bishops of the modernist jurisdictions. Listen to them. Then listen to the bishops of the modernist jurisdictions. It should not take long for you to recognize the differences. At one time, realizing these differences, you came under the omophorion of the Synod's bishops. For many years you zealously defended the Synod and your bishops. They have not changed, even as the policy of the Church has not changed.
Why are you then abandoning those who accepted you with love, and who nurtured you throughout all these years?
I have read several letters written to our bishops by priests who decided to break with them. The letters state that the priests are acting according to the dictates of their conscience, and must do what they are doing as a matter of faith, and for the salvation of their souls and the souls of their flock.
I do not doubt for an instant the sincerity of their motivation—they believed their actions to be right, based on their understanding of the situation of the Synod at the time they wrote their letters.
But their premise was absolutely erroneous. They have been misled by those who have attempted to portray the Synod's position as having radically changed in the few months since the repose of Metropolitan Philaret. And yet, as I have shown above, nothing could be further from the truth.
There has been absolutely no escalation of ecumenical activity, or escalation in contacts with the Moscow Patriarchate by the Synod in the past year. The only escalation has been in the volume of false material being distributed from Seattle and from Boston during the same period of time.
I can in no way blame those who have been misled by this enormous flow of misinformation. But I hope that they will realize that the information has expressed only one side of the issue, and has been self-serving and self-justifying.
I do feel that an error was made by those who left without listening to the other side of the issue. Perhaps, having heard both sides, they will realize that they acted too hastily, and that the situation is not at all as clear as they originally were led to believe.
We should remember that one of the documents circulated in the "Information Packet" demands that the legal concept of "due process" be applied to ecclesiastical questions.
In like manner, let us see if it would not make sense to invite you and all those who left the Synod or who are considering this action to apply another concept well known in our legal system: that matters must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If even minor misdemeanors must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," then think how much more important it is to use the same measure with regard to matters that affect our eternal salvation, and not only our own, but that of the souls entrusted to our care. Do you realize what an awesome responsibility that is, and how careful we must be not to make an error that imperils these souls?
So, please try, with an open mind, to measure the accusations that have recently been brought against the Synod. Ask yourselves, honestly, have they been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ask yourselves these questions:
Do the materials in the "Information Packet" prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Synod has changed its position on Ecumenism in recent months?
Do these materials prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Synod has changed its position on the Moscow Patriarchate in recent months?
Do these materials prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Synod has fallen into heresy or apostasy?
Do these materials prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Synod's fundamental positions have changed on any of these issues from the beginning of 1986, when Fr. Panteleimon called the Synod "a standard of Orthodoxy," to the end of 1986, when the break occurred?
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have committed a grave mistake and put the souls entrusted to you in equally grave jeopardy.
Archimandrite Alexis of St. Edward Brotherhood in Brookwood, who was himself tonsured at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, wrote in a letter to me dated February 5/18, 1987:
"The news of the Boston schism did not come as a complete surprise as it seemed to us that for some time they have been ploughing their own furrow, but we were surprised that so many have been persuaded to follow them. From the materials that we have received, both from Bostonites and from people within the Synod still, it seems crystal clear that their leaving was not justifiable and the manner of their leaving was highly irregular."
And Fr. Michael Azkoul, who is a frequent contributor to the "Orthodox Christian Witness" and is very highly respected in the American Orthodox community, wrote the following in a letter to me dated January 21/February 3, 1987 (written in response to my first "Open Letter"):
''I agree with you that our Russian Church Abroad (RCA) has not fallen into heresy. She is not ecumenist. She is nor apostate. Our bishops cannot be ranked with Pimen, Demetrios, Iakovos, Germain, etc. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that Fr. Panteleimon cum sui departed the RCA with good reason. Their defense is after the fact. As you have shown, their case is based on ambiguous data." (p. 1)
These words alone should be enough to show you that more than a reasonable doubt exists as to the correctness of your actions.
I appeal to you once more, in the name of Our Lord, to please reconsider them.
With love in Christ,
Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff
Endnotes
1. It should be noted that the Synod Of Bishops in 1971 decreed that the official policy of the Church was that, as a general rule, all converts should be baptized, although each priest is directed to consult his bishop if any questions arise.
2. Actually, on this point John Hudanish errs: If one reads the anathema carefully, one will see that the words "aforementioned heretics" do not mean the objects of the Anathema, i.e. the ecumenists. These words refer to the heretics mentioned in the first phrases of the anathema, i.e. the heretics previously identified by the Church, such as Roman Catholics, Protestants, etc. The Anathema therefore denounces those who would have communion with Roman Catholics, for example.
3. It should be noted, however, that in the case of clergy received from the Moscow Patriarchate, the Synod has required that the newly-accepted clergymen renounce the Moscow Patriarchate publicly and openly in church. This is to avoid any confusion of the faithful, who might be misled if they saw these clergymen serving in our churches without such a public renunciation on record.
4. In actuality, official Synodal declarations on this question prohibit joint prayer only with clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate and the OCA. Any further restrictions are a matter of the individual policy of the local bishops.
5. It should be noted that Fr. Isaac's letter, despite all the allegations to the contrary, was received by the bishops in English, not in some supposedly erroneous Russian translation. It was an important document, since it was precisely the "ills" referred to by Fr. Isaac that the bishops set out to investigate.