Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2006 Address by Bishop Daniel of Erie

Expand Messages
  • Athanasios Jayne
    2006 ADDRESS OF BISHOP DANIEL OF ERIE VICAR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS, SERVICING OLD-RITE BELIEVERS To the Clergy, Monastics and Parishioners Of
    Message 1 of 4 , May 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      2006 ADDRESS OF BISHOP DANIEL OF ERIE
      VICAR OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS,
      SERVICING OLD-RITE BELIEVERS

      To the Clergy, Monastics and Parishioners
      Of The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

      On the Threshhold of the IV the Pan-abroad Sobor 2006 In San
      Francisco
      Speaking: Bishop Daniel, Vicar of the First Hierarch of the Church
      Abroad on Old-Believers Affairs.

      I wish to address you and share some of my thoughts on matters which
      are troubling us, which I had written down a year ago, yet have not
      lost their significance at the current time.

      Dear Vladikas, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters in the Lord!

      At one time I had addressed you in connection with the dialogue which
      is being conducted between our Church Abroad and the Moscow
      Patriarchate. I feared that this dialogue would lead to the
      unification of our Churches under the authority of the Moscow
      Patriarchate, and subsequently, to the complete annihilation of our
      independence, which we have had for more than eighty years now.

      I was reassured that the issue was not unification of the Churches,
      and not our subordination to Moscow, but merely improving relations
      between our Churches.

      I have nothing against that, and allowed myself to be persuaded that
      nothing threatens the existence of our Church as self-sufficient and
      independent.

      Then I received an entire package of documents from our Church's
      Synod of Bishops on these matters and it took me quite a while to
      read them and think them over.

      Therefore, I find it indispensable to address you again, since the
      documents that were sent to me far surpass my worst fears, and I will
      unlikely be able to personally be present in conciliar discussion of
      these issues.

      In the beginning much is said about mutual relations between the
      Church and the state, about ecumenism from an Orthodox point of view,
      and we can only rejoice at this, since in the recent past,
      or "yesterday" on a historical scale, the Moscow Patriarchate was
      under full and unequivocal submission to the godless, communist
      authority, which seized our Fatherland and would have belonged to any
      organization on instructions from that authority.

      Our Church never was in a union with the godless authority and never
      belonged to any ecumenical organizations, therefore none of this has
      any direct relationship to us. One can only hope that the Moscow
      Patriarchate will not elude these principles.

      All the talk that unification or subordination to the Moscow
      Patriarchate is not being conjectured is absolutely unsubstantiated.

      At first nothing is mentioned about commemorating the first hierarch,
      probably so as not to aggravate the flock abroad, but then it turns
      out that the election of the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad is
      subject to confirmation by the Patriarch and the Synod of Bishops of
      the Moscow Patriarchate, and the name of the First Hierarch will be
      commemorated only after the name of the Patriarch; a commemoration
      which hitherto had not been mentioned.

      The Patriarch together with his bishops is given the right to ratify,
      and consequently not ratify, i.e., the right to veto all important
      decisions on leadership within our Church, including election of
      bishops.

      Is this not the union of the Churches and is this not the
      subordination of our Church unto Moscow?

      What is this?

      According to the candid admission of the Patriarchate, our Church
      must become one of its self-governing parts – similar to the Churches
      of Latvia or Estonia. To say thereby, that no unification or
      subordination is presumed, as it is done in the draft letter to
      Metropolitan Kiprian, simply means to consciously lead people into
      delusion, i.e. to deceive them.

      In becoming dependent on the Patriarch et al, our Church will no
      longer remain independent, i.e., autocephalous de facto, as it had
      been and continues to be now more than eighty years, having something
      greater than autonomy, namely independence. Our Church has no need
      for any autonomy, no matter how alluring this autonomy may seem to
      poorly informed people.

      It is revealing that the word "independence", which precisely defines
      our position as of today, is painstakingly avoided by the compilers
      of the documents under review, with reference to the Church Abroad,
      and it is quite clear why the Moscow Patriarchate wishes to deprive
      us of this self-sufficiency and independence and make us subordinate
      unto itself, using any kinds of truths or falsehoods.

      In view of the fact that it has become clear where further talks with
      the Moscow Patriarchate are leading: to unification with it, under
      the power of the Patriarch of Moscow, it appears to me to be
      advisable to cease further talks with the Moscow Patriarchate until
      such time that their position on this matter is clarified.

      If they agree to recognize our independence, then we may have
      discussions with them on equal grounds, about improving relations
      between our two independent Churches, even to the point of
      Eucharistic communion, but if not, we can continue our independent
      existence with no need of Moscow's blessing.

      The compilers of the documents under review omit from view the fact
      that religion and patriotism are different subjects. Orthodoxy and
      the Moscow Patriarchate are not one and the same. One may be Russian
      and still be Orthodox, and not belong to the Moscow Patriarchate.

      Ethnic Greeks belong to various autocephalous Churches, such as
      Alexandria, Antioch an others. Their adherence to these Churches does
      not make them Orthodox to greater or lesser degrees than others, and
      they do not cease being Greeks.

      Our common descent from Russian ancestors does not oblige us to
      submit to the Patriarch of Moscow, particularly since he and the
      majority of his circle were appointees of the soviet regime, hostile
      to Russia, yet now they create the impression that nothing
      extraordinary happened, and that we must submit to their authority.

      We must decidedly set this aside!

      If we were to submit to the Patriarch's authority, not only would we
      lose our self-sufficiency and independence, but also the many
      thousands of our flock, descendants of those Russian refugees for the
      fulfillment of whose spiritual needs our Church was established, as
      well as the majority of our clergy and a part of the hierarchy.

      All church rules have as their only, if not sole purpose, the
      spiritual benefit of the flock. If our Church joins now with the
      Moscow Patriarchate, then many thousands of these people will be left
      without a Church. Who needs that?

      Can it be that our pastoral conscience will permit this to happen?

      Many thousands of people belong to our Church. If they have a desire
      to be under the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, they can join
      it at any time, but they are not doing that. That means, they prefer
      to be in a Church which is independent of it, and they do this
      consciously and not by happenstance. Can it be that the majority of
      people who belong to our Church belong to it through
      misunderstanding? It is ridiculous to even imagine this!

      If we were to join Moscow now, then we would betray our brethren who
      trusted us. This would be an act of the self-anihilation of our
      Church, in other words, suicide.

      What would we receive in return? Decidedly nothing! We would not
      become Orthodox, since we never ceased being Orthodox. If there is
      not one but two independent Russian Churches, then what is wrong with
      that? There are many Greek Churches. The number of independent
      Orthodox Churches was never a subject in the teaching of the faith.
      Also, important questions such as to be or not to be with certain
      Churches cannot be decided by a simple majority of votes. In this
      case unanimity is necessary, or an almost unanimous decision by all
      the members of a given Church. It's doubtful that we have unanimity
      in this matter of interest to us.

      Therefore, it is better for us to adhere to our old status quo and
      set aside unification with the Moscow Patriarchate as a frivolous
      fancy.

      * * *

      This interview with His Eminence Bishop Daniel was recorded by G.
      Soldatow.

      The video and taperecording of this address are in the editorial
      office of "Fidelity".

      March, 2006

      Contact Fidelity:

      President:
      Prof. G.M. Soldatow
      3217-32nd Ave. NE
      St. Anthony Village, MN
      55418, USA
      GeorgeSoldatow@...

      Secretary & Treasurer:
      V.W. Scheglovsky
      P.O. Box 27658
      Golden Valley, MN
      55427-0658, USA
      http://MetAnthonyMemorial.org

      http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?
      t=6334&sid=f0b5b3d02b881632c79030b713a198a5
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.