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

Address of the Council of Bishops

Expand Messages
  • Rev Mark Gilstrap
    Address of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to Its Flock October 2001 We, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 2, 2001
      Address of the Council of Bishops
      of the Russian Orthodox Church
      Outside of Russia
      to Its Flock
      October 2001

      We, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,
      assembled at an extraordinary session of the Council of Bishops in
      nearly full complement, with the exception of those who are ill, to
      resolve a very important question: the election of the successor to our
      elderly Metropolitan Vitaly. Because of his advanced age (he is ninety-
      one) and the poor state of his health, His Eminence the Metropolitan
      himself saw that it is difficult for him to carry out his duties, and at the
      July session of the Synod announced his retirement. The Metropolitan's
      announcement was taken into consideration and a time was appointed
      (October 23rd-31st ns) for the election of his successor.

      At the designated time, October 23rd, 2001, the Council of Bishops,
      after the Liturgy and a special service of supplication, set about its task.
      On October 24th, again after the Liturgy, a memorial service for the
      deceased First Hierarchs and a service of supplication, they proceeded
      to the voting: the envelopes, in which each of the hierarchs had early
      placed his vote for the candidate of his choice, were opened. On the
      first ballot, Archbishop Laurus received an absolute majority of 2/3 of
      the votes, and thus was proclaimed Metropolitan and next First Hierarch
      of the ROCOR. The rite of enthronement was performed at the all-night
      vigil and the Liturgy on the following Saturday and Sunday, the 26th and
      27th of October.

      On the shoulders of our new First Hierarch lie many years of life as a
      monk and a bishop. While yet a boy, living near the Monastery of St.
      Job of Pochaev in Carpatho-Russia, he divided his life between his
      home and the monastery, an unofficial novice, as it were. When the
      monastery's brotherhood emigrated farther away, through Germany
      and Switzerland to the United States, Vladyka Laurus (his name was
      then Basil) forsook his homeland forever and departed with the brethren.

      Over the many years of his monastic life, His Eminence passed through
      all forms of monastic obedience: he worked in the cow-barn, set type
      in the print-shop, labored in the office, etc. Having received his theology
      degree in the Seminary's seventh graduating class, in 1954, he taught
      many subjects, and ultimately became rector of Holy Trinity Seminary.

      Consecrated a bishop in 1967, he has been Secretary of the Synod
      throughout almost all of his episcopacy, first under Metropolitan Philaret,
      and later under Metropolitan Vitaly. Possessed of great experience in
      the work of the Secretary, His Eminence is the natural successor to
      the work of his eminent predecessors.

      The lot of the new First Hierarch is a difficult burden. The cultural
      powers of our diaspora have weakened, since many have departed
      to a better world. The younger generations which have grown up
      in our parishes are called to the service of our Church, but
      representatives of the third emigration have yet to become sufficiently
      churchly to effectively participate in the life of the Church.

      To this other problems have been added.

      In the Letter of our Council of 2000, reactions of approval to several
      decisions and resolutions of the Moscow Council of 2000 were
      expressed. As a result of this, certain of those who are overly zealous
      have protested and disseminated intentionally false rumors that the
      Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia had altered its previous
      course and is moving toward unification with the Moscow Patriarchate,
      and that it was even inclining toward ecumenism.

      Thus, with regret our whole Church has had to endure powerful
      disturbances hitherto unseen. As if from deep within the bosom of the
      body of the Church cracks began to appear, though they have not yet
      developed into deep fissures. We look on with fear as in places they
      are trying to transform these chinks into rifts which split apart not only
      the flock, but even the clergy.

      What is the reason for these activities? How are we to understand
      that over the course of nearly a year several clergymen have stirred
      up the flock, convinced that the Council of Bishops has altered the
      course of the life of our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia?

      But the question of unification was not raised, nor is it intended to raise
      it at the present time. As concerns the Moscow Patriarchate, apart from
      our relationship with it, whether we wish such a thing or not, its clergy
      nurture a significant part of the Russian Orthodox people; and if changes
      are taking place there for the better, we cannot but welcome this. Yet at
      the same time there is still much that separates us.

      When the question of ecumenism was raised at the Moscow Council of
      2000, it showed that this problem has not been resolved, since almost all
      of the episcopate voted for its continued participation in ecumenism,
      despite the fact that the people and the clergy are opposed to this. Yet
      within the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate literature and video films
      are being disseminated which denounce ecumenism.

      Although the atheistic Soviet regime of the past no longer exists, and
      one might assume that Sergianism has likewise passed away together
      with its founders, in actual fact this is far from the case. One can often
      hear voices within the Moscow Patriarchate defending the Declaration
      of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), calling it a wise decision,
      while it was instead a capitulation to the atheistic regime. It is
      essential to condemn the Declaration, so that a precedent will not be
      set; lest if (God forbid!) persecutions again arise, it could not be cited
      as a decision wise in any degree.

      And there are other reasons which hinder a rapprochement, but we will
      not enumerate them here.

      We, however, are confronted with the difficult task of guiding our
      flock primarily under the conditions of the heterodox world. This
      is complicated even more by modern trends such as a New World
      Order, or globalism. Although it is political or economic in character,
      yet its objective is to control political and economic life, not only in
      one country, but throughout the entire world. These trends also
      have an influence on men's moral life. In them everything is permissible
      where profit is concerned; and for this they employ not only the
      profanation of Christian holidays, but also all manner of diabolical
      things: and the boundary between good and evil is being erased.
      As concerns television: most films are replete with scenes of horror,
      violence, depravity and inhuman superbeings. This exercises a
      particular influence upon the children, who pay close attention to
      such things. Our goal in these times is to support in every way,
      and perhaps to restore, the call to the formation and preservation
      of the family structure for our children's sake. Governments are
      concerning themselves with this less and less.

      Explanations have been given concerning these anxieties in every
      way in various venues: from the ambo, at gatherings, by letter and
      announcements.Each session of the Synod has produced needful
      elucidations, providing the assurance that our Church not only
      continues to stand in the Truth, but that it is calling upon its whole
      flock to be faithful, as before, to Christ and His Church. No
      deviations or betrayals are conceivable.

      We have replied continually over the course of an entire year to
      all supposed anxieties.

      With what can we comfort you who are troubled and disquieted,
      if you arein actual fact seeking the truth?

      Everything has already been said: we are not going off in any
      other direction. One can wage the struggle of standing in the
      Truth only by preserving the basic Christian virtues. To be faithful
      to Christ and His Church is the aim of our life, and it is attainable
      if one has faith and lives in the fear of God, maintaining
      moral purity, resisting all temptations, and obtaining the gift of
      sober-mindedness in obedience.

      We notice how proclamations of loyalty are accompanied by calls to depart
      from the existing Church order. This is obviously incompatible. Forgive us
      for our personal sins. Do not harbor in your hearts malice toward and
      condemnation of your archpastors, who share your life with you, and in any
      case will answer for their dioceses before God and the Council of Bishops
      for their conduct.

      The Church is the mystical Body of Christ, and not an organization.
      Obedience is first and foremost a struggle voluntarily undertaken, and
      not mere submission. We live in the Church not only in oneness of mind
      and righteousness, but most of all in oneness of soul.

      The events of recent days show how far our earthly life has changed, even in
      outwardly prosperous America, on a single day nearly six thousand people
      perished almost instantaneously.

      The Holy Church reminds us of this and calls upon us to take care not only
      for what we need in our daily lives, but also for the salvation of our soul,
      so that no misfortune may catch us unawares. He who is with God fears
      nothing.

      We call upon you all to rally around our First Hierarch, His Eminence
      Metropolitan Laurus, and to lead a life closely bound up with the life
      of the Church. This is difficult, living, as you do, scattered throughout
      the heterodox world; but with God everything is possible.

      [Signatures:]
      Metropolitan Laurus

      Archbishop Alypy

      Archbishop Mark

      Archbishop Hilarion

      Bishop Kirill

      Bishop Eftikhy

      Bishop Agafangel

      Bishop Amvrosy

      Bishop Michael

      Bishop Gabriel

      Bishop Agapit



      (Archived at
      http://www.rocor.org/letters/2001-sobor-address-to-flock.rtf,
      http://www.rocor.org/letters/2001-sobor-address-to-flock.pdf,
      http://www.rocor.org/letters/2001-sobor-address-to-flock.html)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.