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

True Orthodoxy or Arrogation?

Expand Messages
  • matanna@aol.com
    TRUE ORTHODOXY OR ARROGATION*? Address of a Member of the IV All-Diaspora Council The Church is established not to sow division among those who gather
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      TRUE ORTHODOXY OR ARROGATION*?
      Address of a Member of the IV All-Diaspora Council
      "The Church is established not to sow division among those who gather within
      her, but to gather those who are divided."
      St John Chrysostom

      *To claim unwarrantably or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself
      without right.
      There is a passage in the Old Testament about how Saul sought to justify his
      rebelliousness and disobedience by increasing the number of burnt
      sacrifices, but he was told through a prophet: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt
      offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to
      obey is better than sacrifice… For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
      stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." For his disobedience, Saul was
      spurned by the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Love, the Spirit
      of Blessedness, departed from him. So it is no surprise that those who depart
      from the Body of Christ "forming their separate gatherings" divide
      themselves, for they are not united by the Spirit of the Lord, Which "gathers together
      the whole of the Church" (Pentecost service). In this lies the difference
      between the ROCOR and the groups of "True-Orthodox Christians": Metropolitan
      Anthony acted in accordance with the blessing of the Supreme Ecclesiastical
      Authority headed by Holy Patriarch Tikhon and with the permission of the Locum
      Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne, while today's groups are simply arrogating.
      From what canonical authority, that is, from which genuine Sobor [Council] of
      Bishops, did Archbishop Lazar, the founder of the RTOC, receive a blessing or
      release to act independently? In his appeal of 1990 to the Council of Bishops
      of ROCOR headed by Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Lazar, deeming that "in
      ROCOR there are latent Sergianists and Masons" (!), he writes "I fulfilled the
      decision of the Synod of ROCOR and the decrees of the First Hierarch by my
      own free will… I declare that on the basis of Ukase No. 362 of Holy Patriarch
      Tikhon… the decisions of the Council and Synod of the ROCOR, and also the
      decrees of the First Hierarch are not obligatory " for his diocese, and this was
      12 years before dialog began between the ROCOR and the MP! How can one say
      then that the RTOC is some kind of "extension of ROCOR"? The same applies to
      all the other groups that have broken away from the Church Abroad.
      It was for good reason that Holy Apostle Paul calls the Church a "body,"
      for, in the words of Holy Hieromartyr Ilarion (Troitsky), "two bodies cannot
      organically be bound together… If the foot says: I am not a part of the body,
      because I am not the arm, does it then mean that it indeed does not belong to
      the body?.. The eye cannot say to the hand: I do not need you; or the head to
      the feet: You are of no use to me." St Ilarion continues: "In the organism,
      separate members cannot grow and develop apart from each other, but always
      only bound together with the whole organism. The same applies to the Church."
      That is why he who crafts a hierarchy apart from this body is not within the
      Church.
      In our day, there are some 15 groups worldwide of "true-Orthodox Christians"
      who have no communion with each other. As with the Protestants, the Church
      is "unseen." In the words of St Theophan the Recluse, "Where is the united
      Church of Christ? What sort of Body of the Church is it when all the parts have
      fallen away and have gone in different directions? How can one say that the
      one true Divine Pastor is their Pastor?" These groups are not simply
      "jurisdictions:" all Russian jurisdictions (ROCOR, the Paris Exarchate, the OCA) are
      in communion with the Ecumenical Church: ROCOR through the Patriarch of Serbia
      or Jerusalem, the Exarchate through the Patriarch of Constantinople, the OCA
      through the Moscow Patriarchate. The Catacomb Hierarchs Kirill of Kazan,
      Agafangel of Yaroslav and Iosif of Petrograd did not create a new, independent
      Church : they commemorated the lawful locum tenens , St Peter of Krutitsa, who
      connected them with the entire Ecumenical Church. Before his blessed repose,
      the most zealous Metropolitan Philaret commemorated the Patriarch of
      Jerusalem in our monasteries in the Holy Land, despite the fact that the latter
      commemorated all the Orthodox Patriarchs, including the Patriarch of Moscow. Was
      not then Metropolitan Philaret in communion with "worldwide Orthodoxy?"
      In the words of the great canonist, Bishop Nikodim (Milash): "If in every
      society, strict order must be observed and each must know his place in society…
      this is especially so with regard to the Church of Christ on earth." That is
      why, according to the holy canons, a priest, if he departs from his bishop,
      is called "a thief of authority." Laypersons who commune with him are
      expelled "from communion in the Church." It is often thought that "apostolic
      succession" is enough for a bishop to be a true Orthodox bishop, and consequently,
      that the Mysteries he performs possess grace. In the 4 th century, Maximus the
      Cynic desired to seize the Constantinople cathedra, and the two bishops from
      the Patriarchate of Alexandria summoned by him performed his consecration.
      Yet the Fourth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council declared: "Maximus never
      was and is not now a bishop." Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), notes: "For the
      validity of a Mystery of the priestly ordination, it must be made not only by
      full-fledged bishops, but in the observance of the rules of election and
      installation of a bishop." This means that the leader of the RTOC, in the Orthodox
      teaching on the Church, is not a bishop.
      There is only one circumstance—if a clergyman begins to openly preach heresy
      already condemned by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils—that gives the
      right to break communion with him. In addition, the laws only allow
      non-commemoration of him "until the Council examines him," "to guard the Church against
      schisms." That is why the canons do not allow the commemoration of another
      Bishop, or the creation of a new hierarchy.
      "Keep always in your mind's eye… Metropolitan Anthony, who was like the
      ancient hierarchs, and in difficult times ask yourself how he would have acted in
      each case" said St John of Shanghai. It was precisely at the time that the
      Primate of ROCOR was Metropolitan Anthony that the Ecumenical Patriarch and
      the other Churches adopted the new calendar. The Patriarch Basil III mentioned
      below was not only a modernist but an ecumenist:
      In the beginning of his letter to the Athos Hieroschemamonk Theodosius,
      Metropolitan Anthony posed the main question: "We must always think of this: what
      will my proposed step do for the Holy Church and for our souls?" Further he
      writes: "In the resolution of a question on continuing or breaking communion,
      one must, in accordance with Divine will, revealed through Tradition, the
      Canons and the lives of the Saints, employ condescension," and in fact, " "in
      certain circumstances, the breaking of communion with the guilty is mandatory
      only for bishops." From the point of view of Holy Canons, the Hierarch, in
      his letter to Hieromonk Ilarion, clarifies: "Continue to commemorate Patriarch
      Basil as before… To separate from ones Patriarch is permitted by the 15 Canon
      of the Double Council only when he is condemned by the Council for clear
      heresy, and until then one can only refrain from fulfilling his unlawful
      demands. St Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, teaches us by example how we are
      to treasure ecclesiastical peace. Let Fr Theophan calmly continue to serve as
      a priest and pray for the good order of the holy Divine Churches." In
      another letter to Hieroschemamonk Theodosius, Vladyka Anthony explains: " "I grieve
      that you were persuading the brethren not to pray for Patriarch Basil… For
      the monks of Athos will be divided, not like the seamless garment of Christ.
      Pray that the Lord enlighten the old madman [the Patriarch]…" It is
      interesting to note that the Metropolitan thought first of the unity of the Athos
      monastics, which was more important than some sort of "true Orthodoxy," for the
      great Hierarch knew in his inherent foresight what can happen: " By this [that
      is, by breaking communion with the Patriarch] you approach the bezpopovtsi
      [priestless Old Believers] and at the very least, the schismatics." In another
      letter he repeats: " In hastening towards division, [the zealots] can find
      themselves in the same abyss that the bezpopovtsi threw themselves." One must
      note that the Metropolitan did not say that they must simply commemorate the
      Patriarch, but must pray for him, that the Lord "enlighten" him. In this way,
      healing untruth in the Church, the Metropolitan thought, was achieved not by
      schism, but by prayer. In conclusion, the Metropolitan writes to the zealots
      beyond reason: "Your zeal is worthy of praise, but hardly worthy of praise is
      rebellion and your judgment upon bishops!"
      Fr Justin Popovich, student of Metropolitan Anthony, did likewise. He
      commemorated his ruling bishop despite the fact that at the time, Patriarch German
      was the President of the WCC. Few know that, while openly denouncing the
      teaching of Patriarch Athenogoras as heretical, he felt that since the latter was
      not condemned by the Church, he, consequently, remained a part of her. That
      is why, when he learned of the death of the Patriarch, he served a pannikhida
      for his soul.
      In the words of Holy Martyr Ilarion (Troitsky); " To separate, to go into
      isolation, is… for a Local Church the same as for a ray of sunlight to separate
      from the Sun, for a stream to separate from its wellspring, for a branch to
      separate from its trunk. The spiritual life can only exist in organic
      connection with the Ecumenical Church; if this connection is broken, Christian life
      will then unavoidably dry up." This is attested to by the behavior of the
      so-called "true-Orthodox Christians" who divide monasteries, parishes, families…
      One must destroy ones passions with the help of the Church, not destroy the
      Church by ones passions. The Athonite Elder Paisius said, characteristically:
      " If one hopes to help the Church, one would be better to correct oneself,
      and not others. If you correct yourself, then a small part of the Church will
      be corrected. And it is obvious that if everyone did that, then the Church
      would be brought into perfect order. But people today are occupied with
      everything possible except themselves, because it is easy to fix others, but it
      requires effort to fix oneself."
      "More than once has Orthodoxy appeared to be on the brink of doom, but then
      the time would come for its internal, and also external, strength," wrote St
      John of Shanghai, for the Lord Himself saves His Church. In 2000, some
      clergymen wished to "save ROCOR." Instead, they have broken into three factions.
      Without a doubt, the RTOC will soon fragment. Now is the time, during the
      struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy, that the good pastor must "lay down his life
      for his flock," since "a hireling leaves his flock and flees." Our
      hierarchs, who after the war found themselves in communist countries, continued to
      serve under the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate, and yet continued to
      fearlessly witness the Truth. For example, Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) spoke
      out most decisively against ecumenism at the Conference of 1948 in Moscow.
      Instructive also is the example of the good pastor Metropolitan Philaret: while
      in Harbin, although utterly disappointed in the behavior of the MP, for the
      sake of the flock he continued to serve, commemorating Patriarch Alexy I, and
      "did not obey unlawful demands," that is, did not commemorate the godless
      state.
      St Tikhon of Moscow showed us the way: "Only upon this rock—the healing of
      evil with good—is the indestructible glory and greatness of our Holy Orthodox
      Church in the Russian land." To the adherents of a different path, the path
      of the sectarians of the RTOC, Archbishop Anthony of Geneva spoke
      prophetically during the All-Diaspora Council of 1974: "To set out upon such a path [of
      breaking with the Ecumenical Church] we must first reject the past of our own
      Church and condemn it… What is more important for us, the Church herself and
      her living forces, or her temporary, maybe even unworthy, representatives?
      Shall we, because of the latter, tear away from the Universal Church, in which
      most think as we do, in which, despite our unworthiness, the Holy Spirit
      breathes? Whom are we punishing then? Only ourselves!"
      Bernard Le Caro
      Member of the IV All-Diaspora Council
      Geneva, May 2/15, 2007
      _http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_print_lekarolesn
      a.html_
      (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_print_lekarolesna.html)



      ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.