Protopriest Peter Perekrestov
“The Church's Helmsman, Both
Then and Now,
is the Almighty Spirit of God”
Twenty-five questions regarding the process of
re-establishing the unity of the
the IV All-Diaspora Council, ecumenism, and
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
The following article
came out of a desire to explain to those with questions about the currently
unfolding process of healing the division between the two parts of the
1. Why is the
question of uniting the two parts of the
The life of the Church is guided by the Gospels and by the Church Canons,
according to which a Church cannot declare itself to be independent,
autonomous, or autocephalous. In its organization and structure, the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia follows the Holy Canons. The canonical foundation
for the Russian Church Outside of Russia is Patriarch St Tikhon's
Ukaz № 362 dated November 7/20, 1920.
That Ukaz provides, in pertinent part:
“[2] In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front,
changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the
Higher Church Administration, or if the Higher Church Administration itself,
headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its
activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the
bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance
of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the
form either of a temporary Higher Church government or a Metropolitan district,
or anything else)”.
“[10] All measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction,
afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical
authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.”
It was on the basis of that Ukaz , that “The Regulations of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,” were developed. The first paragraph
thereof provides:
“The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian
Orthodox Church, and for the time [in
all quotations, emphasis provided by bold typeface is mine – Protopriest P. ] until the extermination in Russia
of the atheist government, is self-governing on conciliar
principles in accordance with the resolution of the Patriarch, the Most Holy Synod,
and the Highest Church Council [ Sobor ]
of the Russian Church dated 7/20 November, 1920, No. 362.”
The Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia of 1933, a document, which one may say, is the primary and
fundamental document in outlining the interrelationships between the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow
Patriarchate, speaks of the fact that “the organs of the ecclesiastical
administration abroad have in nowise striven to appropriate the rights of
autocephaly for itself, as Metropolitan Sergius accuses us. To the present day
the entire Church organization abroad has considered and still considers itself
an extraordinary and temporary institution, which must be abolished without delay after
the restoration of normal social and ecclesiastical life in
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky,
our respected theologian and ever-memorable teacher of dogmatic theology at the
Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, wrote about the fact that the time would
come to unite the two parts of the
“The Orthodox Church is Christ's legacy. The Lord also preserves the little
Church vessel known as the Church Abroad, the external offshoot that in the past
sprang from the majestic
It has been 15 years since normal church life was restored in
2. I cannot understand why we need to
go through the formalities, if, as a practical matter, unification has already
taken place. Immigrants from
Informal prayerful, and even – on the lay level – Eucharistic communion, is one
thing. Quite another matter is Church organization on canonical foundations.
From a purely technical standpoint, if bishops of the Church Abroad cannot
concelebrate and commune together with bishops and clergy of the Church in
To some extent it is understandable that it is easier to live free of anyone or
anything, including the canons. However, that is a purely secular, and not an
ecclesiastical-canonical approach to freedom.
3. Why is there such a rush to unite?
At every Liturgy, following the singing of “It is truly meet” after the
Eucharistic Canon, we commemorate our ecclesiastical authorities. That
commemoration defines who we are, and begins with the words, “
Among the first, remember O Lord...” Whom
do we commemorate first
, who is first for
us, who is the head of our Church Abroad? We are required to first commemorate the “Orthodox
episcopate of the
The well-known 34th Apostolic Canon, which in his spiritual will, the Blessed
Metropolitan Anastassy called “the cornerstone” and
which so profoundly and clearly expresses the spirit of conciliar
governance in the Church, directs:
“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and
account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent”.
The Orthodox Church has no anonymous, generalized, formulae for commemorating
ecclesiastical authorities. Our present crisis rests precisely in the fact that
we commemorate as first “the
Orthodox episcopate of the
So as not to usurp ecclesiastical authority and thereby cease being a part of the
People in our Church, especially bishops and clergy who are well-versed in
canonical matters, understand that the Russian Church Abroad is on the brink of
a canonical catastrophe. One may compare the Church to a family, the family of
Christ, or according to St John Chrysostom, the “family of the Only-begotten.”
If the children of one single family bicker among themselves and are not
talking to one another, do they not thereby destroy the family entrusted to
them by their parents? If there is no unity within the
4. The flock is not ready for
unification. Can't we slow it down?
Sixteen years have
elapsed since the government in
By now, parishioners of the Russian Church Abroad have more or less determined
their attitude toward the current unification process. Unfortunately, there is not
complete oneness of mind with respect to this question, just as there had not
been complete oneness of mind, even among the members of our episcopate, on the
question of canonization of the holy New Martyrs of Russia, and especially with
respect to the place of the Royal Passion-bearers among the ranks of New
Martyrs. Within the circles of those who quite actively and irreconcilably
oppose the current process of unification, we do not see a process of
comprehension, maturity, understanding of our situation and, it seems to us, no
timeframes will help in that regard. As soon as the Church in
Only personal experience, living encounters with contemporary Orthodox Rus', can soften these people's hearts and allow them to
see what is joyous and bright, what gives reason for hope in
In the years we spent studying in Holy Trinity Seminary, we seminarians were
told that the barometer of religious life was monasticism: wherever monasticism
flourished, there religious life was healthy. In the 15 years that Alexy II has been Patriarch, the number of monasteries in
The multitude of appeals and letters from diocesan meetings, councils, parishes
and religious organizations sent to the First-hierarch of the Russian Church
Outside of Russia, at least during the past month, evidence the fact that the
vast majority of the faithful of our Church not only personally support Vladyka Metropolitan Laurus, but also that they wish to
have Russian Orthodox Church unity.
It seems to us that not one of the opponents – either in the Diaspora or in
5. Why are parishioners' rights being
limited? Why is such an important decision being made exclusively by the
bishops?
Such is the nature of the Orthodox Church: decisions as to the direction of
Church life are made by the hierarchs, to whom at the time of their
consecration was given the grace to “rightly divide the word of Truth.” Holy
Hierarch John wrote the following on the subject:
“The
Rule by the people is something alien to the Orthodox Church. In the
However, despite this, our First-hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus, convened the IV
All-Diaspora Council, so that representatives of all dioceses might express the
opinions of their brethren and parishioners with respect to the rapprochement
between the two parts of the
By the way, when the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
of Russia held in 1927 decided on 27 August/9 September to break relations with
the Moscow ecclesiastical authority, and to become self-administering (note, we
are not aware of a single conciliar church document
that speaks of a break in Eucharistic
communion with the Church in Russia), neither the clergy of the
Russian Church Abroad nor its parishioners were polled, nor was an All-Diaspora
Council convened to consider such an important question.
6. Was there
dissension at the IV All-Diaspora Council?
During the opening days of the IV All-Diaspora Council, a great many varied,
and sometimes, irreconcilable opinions were expressed. The third working day of
the Council was the most intense, but on the fourth day, when the Resolution
was under consideration, the situation changed. The delegates began to pay more
attention to one another, to propose constructive, practical suggestions, and
to strive for oneness of heart, and there took place what many of them later
called a miracle – the working of the Holy Spirit. The resolution was adopted
almost unanimously. Less than 3 per cent of the participants spoke out against
any of the paragraphs of the Resolution. The first paragraph, regarding
complete trust in and support for the First-hierarch and the Council of Bishops
in the matter of deciding the question of time frames and conditions for the
process toward achieving Church unity, was adopted by 100% of the delegates.
7. Why was the voting at the IV
All-Diaspora Council not by secret ballot, as it was at the III All-Diaspora
Council?
None of the participants in the III All-Diaspora Council whom we questioned
affirmed that at the III All-Diaspora Council voting was by secret ballot. The
minutes of the III All-Diaspora Council did not include a single mention of
secret balloting. Practically all of the resolutions were adopted, one after
another, on the same day, and almost unanimously.
In San Francisco, the Organizing Committee prepared voting cards to be used for
secret balloting, but they turned out to be unnecessary for three reasons:
а) No delegate asked that the voting be secret, and no delegate objected
to the order of voting proposed by the Most-reverend Archbishop Hilarion, head of the Editorial Committee.
b) The show of hands made it absolutely clear that the vast majority was for
the proposed Resolution. For all practical purposes, the Resolution was adopted
unanimously.
c) The Vote Tallying Committee, consisting of Priest Vladimir Petrenko (a delegate from the South American Diocese), Protodeacon Andre Meillassoux
(Western European Diocese) and Alexander Ivanovitch Mutilin (Odessa Diocese), found the order of voting
consistent with the conciliar process. The Vote
Tallying Committee took note of who raised their hands, and they tallied the
votes. Upon completion of the voting, the Vote Tallying Committee turned the
voting results over the Council Secretariat.
8. Why was only four minutes allotted
to each speaker at the IV All-Diaspora Council?
In accordance with the instructions to the III All-Diaspora Council, at that
Council, time limitations of 10 minutes were imposed. Moreover, according to
the minutes of the III Council, Archbishop Nikon more than once “closed
debate,” i.e. would not allow discussion to continue. Also, Metropolitan
Laurus, secretary of the III All-Diaspora Council, and a series of participants
(both clergy and laity) whom we specifically questioned as to the time allotted
for speakers, confirmed that at the III All-Diaspora Council time limits were
imposed.
The III All-Diaspora Council had 9 working days, and the number of delegates at
the sessions did not exceed 90 individuals (there was one day in which fewer
than 80 were present). Moreover, that Council was not convened to consider any
one specific sharply-pressing question.
In duration, the IV All-Diaspora Council was almost half as short, and every
day there were up to 40 more participants than at the III All-Diaspora Council.
It was convened to consider one principal question – the further canonical
existence of the
9. It is our understanding that
unification can happen only at a Local Council; is that not so?
The Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy wrote about the
fact that the unity of the Russian Church would be re-established at a free
Council of the Russian Church, and Holy Hierarch St John (Maximovitch) referred
to a Local Council: “…the entire Church Abroad, all together, must present to
the All-Russian Council with what it had done during its time of forced
separation.” (“To the Orthodox flock of
The current process toward unification appears to be the middle, Royal, path. On the one hand, both parts of the
10. What is the “
The following definition was given at the IV All-Diaspora Council: The Mother
Church is the Church of the New Martyrs, of the Local Council, and of Holy
Russia.
11. Our Church Abroad did not recognize
the election of the Patriarchs in Russia, including the election of Patriarch Alexy II. Have those decisions been rescinded?
A similar question was considered at the IV All-Diaspora Council, and in part,
some delegates, specialists in the history of the Russian Church Abroad and
canon law, offered the following conclusions.
Our non-recognition of the “patriarchate” of patriarchs of the Church in
Non-recognition of the canonicity of the elections of the patriarch meant that
he could not extend his authority over us. The denial of the canonicity of the
election of Patriarch Alexy II in 1991 was a
defensive measure. The Church Abroad recognized all of the patriarchs of the
official Church in
12. How can we commemorate the
Patriarch, a former “agent of the KGB”?
In actual fact, during the Soviet years, some hierarchs of the Church in
However, Archimandrite Justin (Popovic) wrote that we
Orthodox Christians are true disciples of Christ not
in that we have fewer sins than other people and nations, but in that we have
faith, repentance and
humility before the God-man, the only One who did not sin, and Who was without
sin. That path of repentance is open to all without exception. According to St
John the Baptist, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,” i.e. one
must repent not in words but in deeds.
Patriarch Alexy has brought repentance – serving the
Liturgy almost daily (more than 300 times per year!), he prays for forgiveness
of his sins and those of his flock. For His Holiness Patriarch Alexy, prayer is the main thing in carrying his Cross as
Primate of the Church. This is supported by his own words, “I strive to serve
the Liturgy as much as possible, and in the Church Mysteries, Divine grace
supplements, fills in, and strengthens [my] weak human powers,” (from an interview in the magazine Vstrecha [Encounter] , №19,
1/2005) . During his Primacy, three new churches are opened every day ! Unquestionably, he takes care to
further Orthodox education and to do battle with
It would be appropriate to cite an excerpt from a resolution made by the Synod
of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on August 12/25,
1981, regarding the difficulty of assessing Church life in Soviet Russia. The
resolution was made in connection with the publication in a certain Orthodox
magazine of a letter from Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) regarding the activities of Archimandrite Tavrion, a clergyman of the Moscow Patriarchate. In his
letter, Vladyka Philaret
noted sympathetically that at first Fr. Tavrion was
in the
“The Synod of Bishops deems it necessary to remind its flock that first of all,
we must strongly uphold our own faith and exercise our zeal in the authentic
life of the Church under the conditions in which God has placed each one of us,
striving towards the salvation of our souls. Due to insufficient information , deliberations about
the significance and quality of various events in
The situation of the Church in
13. Yes, that's fine, but why to date
has Patriarch Alexy not offered words of repentance,
openly and publicly?
Patriarch Alexy had publicly repented in the press,
in an announcement published in 1991 regarding Metropolitan Sergius'
Declaration. Unfortunately, his announcement was not aired in the religious press
of the Church Abroad. It was first publicly announced 12 years later (!), at
the Pastoral Conference in 2003 in Nyack, and then at the IV All-Diaspora
Council in
“That declaration is part of the history of our Church. As a person of the
Church, I must take upon myself responsibility for everything that happened in
the life of my Church: not only the good, but that which was difficult,
lamentable, and erroneous. It would be too simple to say, ‘I did not sign it
and don't know anything…'
Today we are able to say that untruth was
mixed in his [Metropolitan Sergius'] Declaration...
Defending one thing, he had to make compromises in something else. Were there
other organizations or other people among those who had to bear responsibility
not only for themselves but for the fate of thousands of others, who in those
years in the
14. Before, there was a negative
attitude of mistrust toward the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, including
toward Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, and now the
attitude toward them has turned in a more positive direction. Why has there
been such a shift?
When you are talking about the episcopate of the Church in
Many representatives of the Russian Church Abroad formed a negative attitude
toward Metropolitan Kirill, primarily on the basis of
some of his early pronouncements and also negative articles about him in the
secular press.
However, Metropolitan Kirill himself has experienced a certain disenchantment with the ecumenical movement and
has demonstrated a shift in emphasis in his activities. As to press notices Protopriest Nikolai Artemov noted
at the IV All-Diaspora Council that he used to read a variety of critical
articles about Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyayev). However, when he began to receive similar
articles about a hierarch of the Church Abroad whom he knew well, he changed
his attitude toward such publications.
In 2004 members of the delegation from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia had the opportunity to meet face to face with Metropolitan Kirill and to candidly ask him a series of questions. After
their personal encounter with Metropolitan Kirill,
the delegates were convinced as to his sincerity and candor, his devotion to
the
15. Our fathers and grandfathers
suffered at the hands of the communists. How can we now unite with such people?
It was not only the fathers and grandfathers of those who went abroad that
suffered at the hands of the communists. Almost every family, abroad and in the
“When the awful persecutions and active victimization of clergy began, our
relatives, as chosen warriors of the
Further, Fr. Sergei tells of his own life:
“God blessed me to live through the entire second half of the XX century in
peace and prosperity. But we never forgot the suffering of the martyrs – our
ancestors and fathers. We lived with an indissoluble connection to them. My
father's stories about Solovki and the
Can we possibly be “more pure” than these people, greater than they in
suffering, and can we possibly not want to be united with them?
16. There are still a lot of communists
in the Russian Federation, and many have yet to
acknowledge the sin of regicide.
We are less concerned with the communists' attitude toward regicide than with
that of the
“The sin of regicide, which took place amid the indifference of the citizens of
And today, on behalf of the whole Church, on behalf of her children, both
reposed and living, we proclaim repentance before God and the people for this
sin. Forgive us, O Lord! (From the Epistle of His Holiness, Patriarch of
Moscow and All Russia, Alexy II and the Holy Synod of
the Russian Orthodox Church on the 75th anniversary of the murder of Emperor
Nicholas II and his family, 1993)
Some of our parishioners are troubled by the fact that there are still many
communists, many people who have “repainted” themselves, in the
17. Could it be that the path taken by
the Church Abroad, especially during the 1980s and 1990s, was a mistake?
The path taken by the Russian Church Abroad was the path of the Confessors, a
glorious and worthy path. We love our Church Abroad, we stand by it, and we
treasure and preserve its heritage.
However, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, it was noted (in Protopriest Nicholas Karipoff's speech entitled “The Spiritual-Historical
Heritage of the
”The best of the emigres at first saw their exile as
God's punishment for their sins. After the Second World War, however, we see a
different perception. Thanksgiving to God for deliverance from the communist
hell changes to a sense of chosen-ness: we were saved
because we have a special mission. By the second half of the 1960's and further
this caused the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad to decide on a change
of direction....
The loss of the spirit of repentance of the first decades led to a loss of
clarity in self-assessment. Hence we began to perceive ourselves as not only
intercessors for the
If we are Orthodox, we must not be afraid of acknowledging our weaknesses, our
mistakes; we must not be afraid of the truth, and we must be honest. A certain
hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad once stated, “We are not perfect, but we
are honest.” (from
an interview with Priest Alexis Duncan, in Russky
Pastyr [Russian Pastor] , №22-23, 1995) . The fact is that the Church is holy,
but that people in the Church are weak and sinful… In seeking to save sinners,
the Church Militant on earth does not drive them out from its midst. We must
admit and, through the mercy of God, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, did admit,
that mistakes were made in the past, and that we now “had to pay” for those
mistakes. One example of such mistakes cited at the Council was our taking into
the Church Abroad certain Russian parishes. It is possible that our reception
of parishes on the
The Ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of
18. We were taught that our Church is
“crystal” clear, like unto a glass of pure clean water. If pure water is mixed
with dirty water, the pure water becomes murky. Will not the same thing happen
to our Church if we enter into communion with the Church in
Unfortunately, such pronouncements, to the effect that our Church is
crystal-pure while all of the others are muddy water, bring to mind what the
Lord warned us about in the parable of the publican and the Pharisee. The
history of the Church is extremely complex, and one cannot approach it with a
black-white, fundamentalist standard of measurement.
Let us turn to one of the most important hierarchs and confessors of the XX century,
Holy Hierarch Athanassy (Sakharov), whom the Church
in
In a letter to his spiritual daughter (“Can
one attend churches of the
“Look for example at the history of the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the
XVII century. Turkish sultans appointed patriarchs, and installed as patriarchs
those who made the greatest deposit in the sultan's treasury.
Some patriarchs were on the patriarchal throne for a year, others for a few
months or a few days. They included people who were secretly Jesuits, or who
were sympathetic toward Protestantism… The sultan replaced one patriarch
because someone else had promised to make a greater contribution to the
sultanate treasury. How rapidly and unexpectedly patriarchs were replaced can
be demonstrated by the fact that between 1586 and 1654 there had been 54 changes
of patriarch. What temptations there must have been for the people around them,
for the faithful!
And life for the Christian Greeks during that period was one of unremitting
suffering… but they did not separate themselves from their pastors and archpastors, they did not decline to attend churches in
which the names of patriarchs appointed by the Muslim sultan were commemorated.
One of the patriarchs of that time was St Athanassy Patelarius who, on three separate occasions – with the
requisite payments into the treasury – ascended the throne of Constantinople,
and who later reposed in Russia in Lubno and was
subsequently entered in the ranks of saints.”
Despite the fact that Vladyka Athanassy
did not commemorate Metropolitan Sergius and considered his actions uncanonical, his profound understanding of history enabled
him to not refuse to attend churches in which services were conducted by clergy
who recognized Metropolitan Sergius.
In that regard, he wrote:
“I considered, and consider, sharp and abusive reactions against so-called Sergianist churches and the Divine Services therein
‘blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.'
"True zeal for the Faith cannot be united to anger.
"Where there is anger – there is not Christ, but inspiration from the
power of darkness. Christian zeal, with love and not sorrow, can be accompanied
by indignation, but not by sin (in becoming indignant, do not fall into sin).
But malicious anger is a great sin, an unforgivable sin, – a blasphemy against
the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of love, the Spirit of serenity. And, as a protest
against those who tolerated non-attendance of Sergianist
churches, the most-zealous Vladyka Metropolitan Kyrill (of Kazan – Protopriest. P. ),
would condemn the abuse of ignorant blasphemers and would say that if need be,
in the event of approaching death, he himself would go to confession to, and
receive communion from, a Sergianist priest.”
Likewise, one must remind those not wanting to mix “clean” water with “murky”
water, that already in the III century, the Orthodox Church had condemned those
who could not allow both sinless Christ and sinners to be present
simultaneously in the Holy Church. These people, the Novatianists,
criticized the Church for receiving into communion those who had “fallen” in time
of persecution. Let us be neither like the Pharisees, neither like the heretic Novatianists.
19. Is not “Sergianism” a deviation of a dogmatic nature? Are not “Sergianists” heretics, schismatics,
and uncanonical?
Over the course of 75 years, the Russian Church Abroad has not made any conciliar determination as to what “Sergianism”
is. Individuals have offered definitions, often radically differing from one
another, but there has been no conciliar,
universally-accepted definition. For example, in no article, no homily that has
come down to us, no letter of which we are aware, did Holy Hierarch St John
(Maximovitch) ever use the term “Sergianists.” He did
not refer to the Church in
Had Holy Hierarch John considered the Church in Russia (MP) uncanonical
or schismatic, he would not have voluntarily and completely consciously
submitted to the authority of Patriarch Alexey I (Simansky) in 1945. In a letter to Fr. Dimitry
Dudko, Archbishop Antony (Bartoshevitch)
of Geneva bore witness to Holy Hierarch John's attitude toward the Church in
Russia:
“The late Archbishop John, respected and loved by all of us, used to say the
following: ‘ The official Church in
Russia of course, has grace , although individual hierarchs are
behaving in an unworthy manner.'” ( Posev № 12, 1979)
The Russian Church Abroad has never declared in Council that the Church in
“Blind fanatics and foolish zealots may be dissatisfied only with the fact that
our hierarchs (of the Russian Church Abroad – Protopriest P. )
have never asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate is graceless, bereft of the
grace of God; because of that, we always received bishops and priests coming
into our Church from the Moscow Patriarchate in their existing rank. We believe
and know that God's love continues to be with the Christians of our
much-suffering homeland, even with those who seek it in the clergy officially
recognized by the regime and in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate.”
Were the Church in
“Do we recognize as a matter of principle the validity of the ordinations of
the current Patriarch (Alexey I – Protopriest P. )
and his bishops? Could we even call it into question?
We would then have to declare the entire Church to be without the Mysteries….
[People] say that Patriarch Alexey sinned more than
his predecessor. Whether he sinned more or sinned less, we do not deny his ordination . Much has been said
about their apostasy. However, we must be careful. We can hardly make a direct
accusation of apostasy. Nowhere have they approved of atheism. In their printed
homilies they strive to hew to an Orthodox line. They took and continue to take
very strict measures with respect to the renovationists, and they did not break
their ties with Patriarch Tikhon. The false policies pertains
to the Church authorities and responsibility for them falls upon its
leadership. In this case, the people do not answer for the course of the leadership,
and the entire Church, as such, remains incorrupt . No one dares state
that the entire Church is without grace, but inasmuch as the priests had
contact with a sly dissembling hierarchy, they themselves dissembled, acting
against their own conscience, and were in need of
repentance.”
20. Is compromise in church life
permissible?
At the IV All-Diaspora Council, Metropolitan Amfilohije
responded to a question about compromises and martyrdom as follows:
“We cannot demand martyrdom of everyone. Martyrdom is a gift. I lived under the
communists and by experience know what they are in essence. I do not know how I
would act if they were to start cutting off my arms and legs, or to kill
children. In addition to everything else, a bishop is responsible not only for
himself, but for his flock. Preservation of the flock often depends upon the
bishop. I recently met with Muslims and Catholics in Kosovo. Some people
accused me of ecumenism. My people have been driven away, thrown out, their
homes and churches destroyed, and I do not know what tomorrow will bring. At
the Synod of the
The life of the Church is a difficult life, a life of crucifixion. We
must be afraid of moralizing; moralizing is dangerous. It is characteristic of
Western Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as Communism. This is the dangerous
road of the Inquisition. This kind of moralizing kills!”
21. The
In 1987, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate,
addressed the hierarchs, clergy, and laity of the Russian Church Abroad with a
call to overcome the spirit of bitterness and partition, and to take part,
together with them in the approaching celebration of the Millenium
of Baptism of Rus' (Pre-jubilee
Epistle, dated June 21, 1987) .
In his letter in response, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad,
under the direction of Metropolitan Vitaly (see Church Life № 5-6, 1987) , noted three
conditions preventing our Church from accepting that invitation at that time:
The first reason was – ”the denial by the
Patriarchate of Moscow of the martyrs and confessors of our time.”
The second reason was – ”the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (subsequently
Patriarch), that the interests of the Church and the atheistic government are
identical, to this day still forms the basis of their relations.”
The third reason lay in the fact that “the epistle of the Patriarchate of
Moscow, even though it calls us a Church, distinctly maintains that we are outside the salvific fold
of the
The Epistle written in response to the invitation was limited to those three
reasons. The end of the Epistle speaks of the troubling confusion evoked by the
Moscow Patriarchate's attraction to ecumenism and its participation in prayers
with the heterodox. However, that was not presented as something precluding the
Church Abroad from accepting the Moscow Patriarchate's invitation to
participate in joint celebration of the Millenium of
the Baptism of Rus', and was not framed as a
condition.
Likewise, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, withdrawal from the WCC was not posed
as a pre-condition for unity with the Church in
“From discussions at the Council it is apparent that the participation of the
Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches
evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian
Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to
expediently remove this temptation.”
This plea remains in effect and, God willing, when unity within the
“Re-unification of the Church in Russia and Abroad is a bit frightening,
because if that unification takes place... it will strengthen conservative
tendencies in the Orthodox Church in Russia.” ( Daily Magazine , August 21 2006).
When, at the IV All-Diaspora Council, a question was posed to Metropolitan Amfilohije of the Serbian Orthodox Church, about the
withdrawal of the ROC-MP from the WCC, Vladyka
replied that “ecumenism is a problem
but is not a cause of division between the Moscow Patriarchate
and the Russian Church Abroad. First, you must treat the reasons for division,
and then other questions, such as ecumenism.”
22. In 2006, at the Assembly of the WCC
in Porto Allegre, the Moscow Patriarchate
participated in a summary document from which it may be concluded that baptism
performed outside the Orthodox Church is recognized and that the basic
decisions adopted at the ROC-MP Bishops' Council in 2000 are being violated.
How should one react to that?
The given document was not adopted as a statement , but as an invitation upon which to reflect, and
the ROC-MP is preparing a response, in the spirit of Orthodoxy, to that
document. The ROC-MP proposed that a representative of ROCOR, together with
responsible Patriarchate workers take part in preparing a reply to that
ecumenical document from the WCC. This was discussed at the IV All-Diaspora
Council, but none of the delegates, including the hierarchs and clergy of the
Church Abroad, frank opponents of the WCC, expressed a desire to accept this
proposal.
In talking about the WCC and about ecumenism, it would be appropriate to bring
to mind the words of Metropolitan Vitaly's Nativity
Epistle of 1986. In that Epistle, Vladyka Vitaly explains the meaning of the anathema against the
heresy of ecumenism which is pronounced by the Russian Church Abroad. He
writes:
"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 (one
should note that, in Montreal, for 40 years – from 1957 to 1999 – the new calendrist Annunciation Church, along with its rector, the
V. Rev. Dr. Peter Popescu, was under Metropolitan Vitaly's omophorion. – Protopriest P. ).
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. 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
[b/invite[/b] 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, (Metropolitan Vitaly concelebrated with assembled clergy of the Serbian
Orthodox Church both at the glorification of Holy Hierarch St John Maximovitch
in San Francisco, and at the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Holy
Trinity Seminary in Jordanville in 1998 – Protopriest P. ), this fact alone in no way
influences our standing in the truth.”
23. Will the real property of the
Church Abroad be transferred to
In item 2 of the “Act of Canonical Communion,” it states that the “the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational,
administrative, management, property, and civil matters, existing at the same
time in canonical unity with the fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.” In
other words, with respect to real property and holy objects, the status quo remains. Of course, this does
not exclude the possibility that in the future some holy objects of the Russian
Diaspora will visit
24. Will bishops of the
The Russian Church Abroad had, has, and will continue to have its own Council
of Bishops. All hierarchs of the Russian Church Outside of Russia may
participate in the Councils of the Russian Church Abroad. It is not envisioned
that hierarchs of the Church in Russia (MP) will participate in these Council.
However, in accordance with the “Act of Canonical Communion,” hierarchs of the
Russian Church Abroad are members of the Local Councils and Bishops' Councils
of the Russian Orthodox Church, and take part, according to established order,
in meetings of the Holy Synod. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of
the Russian Orthodox Church, according to established order. They likewise will
have a full say in the elections of the Patriarch.
25. After the “Act of Canonical
Communion” is signed, will representatives of the
If the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad comprise one single Local
Russian Church, and that Local Russian Church is part of the Universal Church,
then, of course, with the blessing of the supreme ecclesiastical authority,
representatives of the Church Abroad will be able to serve with representatives
of all canonical Churches, thus manifesting the Church's fullness, which Holy
Hierarch St John held so dear: “[The Russian Church Abroad] must not break
Communion with other Churches unless they first take that step.” (“The status of the Orthodox Church after the war,”
Proceedings of the 2nd All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia, Belgrade, 1939, p. 400).
Ever-memorable Archbishop Anthony of
“In the Church, there have always been good and bad shepherds, both jewels of
faith and pillars of Truth, and reeds shaken by the wind of the stormy sea of
life. Comprehending the strength of and the temptations brought by this wind,
fanned by the Evil One, we cannot and should not personally condemn the
latter...
Putting aside these bad rectors, those often forced upon the Church, an image
of total concord and mutual understanding among the faithful of all Local
Churches opens up to us. For it is not without reason that at the Liturgy we
pray for ‘the good estate of the Holy Churches of God,' and ‘for the union of
all' – Orthodox Christians in oneness of mind and love!
We all live in the Church in one Holy Spirit and in the grace of God.
Reflecting upon and personally experiencing this Divine Fullness of the One
Body of Christ, we cannot but believe in the One Holy Catholic and
And that consciousness of the unity, holiness, sinlessness,
and invincibility of the Church, in which there is neither Greek nor Jew, in
which believers of all nationalities… demonstrate complete unity of faith and
mutual understanding in love, that consciousness manifests our strength, our
comfort, and our joy, for as the Apostle states, ‘this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.'
Woe unto those who do not feel or understand that invincibility of our Faith
and the Divine fullness of the Church. Distancing themselves from the errors of
official representatives of the people of God and from their unworthy
ambitions, their fascination with ecumenism and modernism, they shut themselves
up within themselves, and like the sectarians, lose the Church while believing themselves to be the sole bearers of the Truth. The
sectarian path is frightening; it is the path of pride, of loss of the conciliar consciousness of the Church, and of our organic
unity in It. Such people sin against the dogma of the
Church, for they do not believe that Its fullness will
prevail against the gates of Hell. They also sin against the Holy Spirit, Which
breathes and lives in the fullness of the Church.”
–––––––––––––––––
We would like to end this article with the comforting words of St Nicholas of
Serbia, who shed so many tears over Christ's Holy Rus',
over the fate of the Church:
“...In particular, you should not despair over the Church of God. If ultimate
victory is assured to anything on earth, it is victory for the
"Holy Hierarch St Gregory the Dialogist, describing the state of the
Church in his time, compared it to an old ship battered by storms, a ship into
which water is pouring from all sides, for its planks have rotted through
having been shaken apart by the waves that continue to buffet it every day.
That was a time of difficult trials – famine, epidemics, confusion, despair,
and wars, that brought agriculture into decline; people did not want to raise
families, because they thought that the end of the world was at hand. That was
the state of the Church XII centuries ago. But the world did not end, the
situation improved, and the Church became firmly established. If the Church
helmsman had been but a human being, It would have
perished in the storms. However, the Helmsman was then, and is now, the
Almighty Spirit of God.” (A letter to
Russian Priest N.S., regarding anxiety over the Church, Missionary
Letters , Moscow 2003, p. 423).
The Entry of the Most-holy Theotokos Into the
Translated from the Russian by Protodeacon Leonid Mickle