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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: The Orthodox Episcopate of the Russian persecuted Ch...

Expand Messages
  • for4z@aol.com
    Fr. Protopresbyter George Grabbe (Bishop Gregory, of blessed memory) wrote: We have seen, that the Decleration of Metropolitan Sergius was a betrayel to the
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 28, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Fr. Protopresbyter George Grabbe (Bishop Gregory, of blessed memory) wrote:
      "We have seen, that the Decleration of Metropolitan Sergius was a betrayel to
      the very existence of the Church; that it was a tribute to apostasy and a
      union with its servers. For this reason it can be acknowledged as being
      worse than any heresy." (taken from The Truth of the Russian Church in the
      Homeland and Abroad, by Protopresbyter George Grabbe, St. Job of Pochaev
      Press, Jordanville, 1989)

      I would like to state, that I did not post this quotation to somehow suggest
      how we should currently approach the MP or its hierarchs, or to personally
      judge Met. Sergius or his followers. Nor does this particular quotation
      comment at all on my personal view on the situation. Bishop Gregory Grabbe's
      writings differ to those of several archpriests on this list......I hope this
      adds to the discussion.

      -Nick Zaharov
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      ... betrayel to ... and a ... being ... in the ... Pochaev ... Fr. George Grabbe was consecrated a bishop some years before 1989. He was ordered into
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > Fr. Protopresbyter George Grabbe (Bishop Gregory, of blessed memory)
        wrote:
        > "We have seen, that the Decleration of Metropolitan Sergius was a
        betrayel to
        > the very existence of the Church; that it was a tribute to apostasy
        and a
        > union with its servers. For this reason it can be acknowledged as
        being
        > worse than any heresy." (taken from The Truth of the Russian Church
        in the
        > Homeland and Abroad, by Protopresbyter George Grabbe, St. Job of
        Pochaev
        > Press, Jordanville, 1989)

        Fr. George Grabbe was consecrated a bishop some years before 1989. He
        was ordered into retirement by Metropolitan Vitaly in 1986. After that,
        he wrote in a tone increasingly critical of the Church Abroad, and is
        said to have left it in his will that none of her bishops should take
        part in his funeral when he died (none did).

        However, I suspect that the book you quote above may be his full-length
        reply, written in 1961, to Prof. S. V. Troitsky's "O Nepravde
        Karlovatskago Raskola"-- which, in turn, had been written in response
        to Fr. Michael Polsky's book. Thus it was part of a polemical series,
        based on the situation as it existed in the postwar "iron curtain"
        years.

        When reading the Scriptures and especially the Epistles of St. Paul and
        the other Apostles, one must always understand who was writing to whom,
        and under what circumstances.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
        >
        > I would like to state, that I did not post this quotation to somehow
        suggest
        > how we should currently approach the MP or its hierarchs, or to
        personally
        > judge Met. Sergius or his followers. Nor does this particular
        quotation
        > comment at all on my personal view on the situation. Bishop Gregory
        Grabbe's
        > writings differ to those of several archpriests on this list......I
        hope this
        > adds to the discussion.
        >
        > -Nick Zaharov
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-
        ->
        > Advent Devotions Online at Following the Star.<br>
        > Take a few quiet moments to follow. See why angels sing. Join them.
        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/3P5UxA/rlGFAA/EcBKAA/m.VolB/TM
        > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
        ~->
        >
        > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >

        --
        CoreComm Webmail.
        http://home.core.com
      • for4z@aol.com
        Vladimir Kozyreff wrote: ...you mix up personal sins which are always forgivable and matters of faith for which no compromise is acceptable. We are not
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

          "...you mix up personal sins which are
          always forgivable and matters of faith for which no compromise is
          acceptable. We are not judging people here, we are judging a
          proposal. That proposal is unorthodox." (See V. Kosyreff's first posting of
          11/28 for the remaining text).

          Vladimir Kozyreff has made an excellent point. The issue deserves a
          thoughtful response from someone who can correctly represent the position of
          our Church. I am not one qualified to do so. However, I would like to add
          other thoughts/questions for clarification and response as well.

          When I attended "Russian School" in Los Angeles in the 1960's, we were taught
          that the Church must always be free of internal interference or control by
          secular governments. We were also taught that Segianism was, in fact, a pact
          with the Soviet regime whereby the future hierarchy of that portion of the
          Church was screened and selected with the approval, if not outright control,
          of the secular government. We were taught that Christ is the head of the
          Church and that no other single member of the Church can dare act alone to
          save the Church and, particularly, that the foundation of the Church cannot
          be altered. We were taught that the Church in the Soviet Union had, in fact,
          strayed from the true Church by accepting internal interference/control by
          the Soviet authorities. If this was all true, then it remains for that
          portion of the Church in Russia today to reverse course and correct the
          mistakes of the past, not to continue making excuses for those mistakes. It
          remains for that portion of the Church outside of Russia to protect that
          which it has been responsible for protecting and not to enjoin itself to
          those same mistakes for the sake of false unity. This is what we were taught
          by an archbishop of our Church. Is there someone reading this who can
          provide authoritative comment on the official position of our Church if it is
          different than what we were taught above? If so, has this position CHANGED
          from before or was the position different then from what we were taught?

          Yours in Christ,
          Eugene Zaharov
        • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
          I believe that the answers to Eugene Zaharov s questions can be found in the documents that I posted just earlier--particularly the words of Metropolitan
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 29, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            I believe that the answers to Eugene Zaharov's questions can be found in
            the documents that I posted just earlier--particularly the words of
            Metropolitan Anastassy at the Sobor of 1953 (a time when no one can say
            that the entire truth about the subjugation of the Church in the Soviet
            Union was unknown to Metropolitan Anastassy).

            Metropolitan Anastassy clearly calls the clergy and the faithful of the
            Moscow Patriarchate "our own." (His exact words were, "If we accept in such
            a manner [i.e. by condescension and economia, A.L.] those foreign to us,
            then how can we not accept our own?"

            Metropolitan Anastassy continues:

            "Only a heresy that is accepted by the whole Church defiles the whole
            Church. In the current case the people are not held to answer for the line
            of action taken by their leaders, and the whole Church, as it is, remains
            undefiled."

            In Russian:

            "Tol'ko jeres' priniataja vseju Tserkovju, porochit vsiu Tserkov'. V dannom
            sluchae narod ne otvechajet za liniju povedenija rukovoditelej i vsia
            Tserkov', kak takovaja, ostajetsia neoporochennoj."

            So--if the "line of action" taken by the leaders of the Moscow
            Patriarchate, i.e. Sergianism, according to Metropolitan Anastassy, does
            not cause the Church, as a whole, to become defiled--then what is the
            question here?

            Let me share some more words of Metropolian Anastassy, from the Minutes of
            Sobor of Bishops of 1953, where some sharp discussion took place among the
            bishops regarding the relationship of the Church Abroad toward the American
            Metropolia and the Paris Exharchate (the Eulogians), both of which had
            broken away from the Church Abroad. Some bishops advocated an
            uncompromisingly strict position, while others strove for reunification.

            After hearing all the discussions, Metropolitan Anastassy, as was his wont,
            summed up the question and expressed his weighty opinion, saying:

            "We must be directed by the words of Christ, 'as you wish that others would
            treat you, so you should act', and 'be wise like serpents and be meek as
            doves.' Yesterday two opposing points of view were expressed: the point of
            view of love without truth, and that of cold truth without love. The real
            truth is found in the combintaion of love and truth."

            Metropolitan Anastassy continues:

            "Archbishop John [(Maximovich). A.L.] spoke very well, that we confess the
            truth, but this does not mean, that all others err. Even if we were the
            only ones with the knowledge of the truth, then it would be needful for us
            not to pride ourselves, but to fear the temptation of pride. And correctly
            it was noted that Fr. Konstantin [(Zaitseff, the Editor of Pravoslavnaja
            Rus', A.L.] often irritates his opponents. They do not have the fulness of
            the truth, there are deviations, but this does not mean that they are
            graceless. In regards to them we must preserve objective calmness. The
            question of restoration of unity must stand separately. We must strive
            toward such unity even now on the same principles of the Temporary
            Statutes, on which we stand even now. It is just, however, that every unity
            begins with personal contact: 'Let us love one another, that with one mind
            we may confess.' But it is as if we are sad that the sharpness of
            jurisdictional quarrels has been weakened. But our goal us unity. Certain
            boundaries had been required as an educational measure. Now, when those in
            the American Metropolia have rejected many extreme positions, we still
            sharpen the question and speak of them as if they were heretics, with whom
            we do not want to have any contact.. . ."

            The last cited words of Metropolitan Anastassy can clearly be applied to
            the current situation of the Moscow Patriarchate-- now, when those in the
            Moscow Patriarchate "have rejected many extreme positions, we still sharpen
            the question and speak of them as if they were heretics, with whom we do
            not want to have any contact.. . ."

            As to the final questions posed by Eugene Zaharov, it is certainly clear
            that the Archbishop of whom he spoke, under whose tutelage I also grew up
            and shared Eugene's experiences in the Los Angeles Parochial School in the
            60's--this Archbishop did not share the irenic positions expressed by
            Metropolitan Anastassy, and which represented the true historical
            perspective of the Russian Church Abroad. He was of the camp that preached,
            in the words of Metropolitan Anastassy, "cold truth without love."

            Let us repeat what Metropolitan Anastassy stated unequivocally: "Our goal
            is unity."

            **That** is the historical position of the Church Abroad.

            And, as Metropolitan Anastassy wrote:

            "It is just, however, that every unity begins with personal contact: 'Let
            us love one another, that with one mind we may confess.'"

            The personal contacts now taking place between representatives of the two
            separated parts of the Russian Church--in the homeland and abroad--are thus
            a clear mandate of Metropolitan Anastassy and completely in keeping with
            the historical position of the Church Abroad.







            With love in Christ,

            Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
          • for4z@aol.com
            I appreciate the additional information provided by Father Alexander with respect to Metropolitan Anastassy s opinion on the matter. Although such an opinion
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 29, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              I appreciate the additional information provided by Father Alexander with
              respect to Metropolitan Anastassy's opinion on the matter. Although such an
              opinion is always important to consider, it is, nonetheless his personal
              opinion unless voted by the Sobor of Bishops. Therefore, my questions remain
              unanswered. What is the official position of ROCOR with respect to the MP as
              determined by the Sobor of Bishops of ROCOR over the years. Have particular
              decisions by the Sobor been made and published? What are those decisions?
              This is the reference frame I am looking for and which may be helpful to
              others as well. Can anyone provide this information?

              Yours in Christ,
              Eugene Zaharov
            • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
              ... Actually, there was a Resolution by the Sobor of Bishops after each of the Summations given by Metropolitan Anastassy: POSTANOVILI: Prinyat k svedeniju i
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 30, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Regarding:

                >I appreciate the additional information provided by Father Alexander with
                >respect to Metropolitan Anastassy's opinion on the matter. Although such an
                >opinion is always important to consider, it is, nonetheless his personal
                >opinion unless voted by the Sobor of Bishops.

                Actually, there was a Resolution by the Sobor of Bishops after each of the
                Summations given by Metropolitan Anastassy:

                "POSTANOVILI: Prinyat' k svedeniju i rukovodstvu slova Predsedatelia."

                "RESOLVED: To accept for consideration and direction the words of the
                President."

                These resolutions make the views expressed by Metropolitan Anastassy far
                more than just expressions of personal opinion.

                One can also not overestimate the esteem and respect for the opinions of
                Metropolitan Anastassy that the other bishops of the Synod Abroad had.


                > Therefore, my questions remain
                >unanswered. What is the official position of ROCOR with respect to the MP as
                >determined by the Sobor of Bishops of ROCOR over the years.


                The official position of the Church Abroad was vis-a-vis the MP was most
                fully expressed in the Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad
                in 1933, which, according to Archbishop Nikon, was penned by Metropolitan
                Anastassy.

                It can be found in both Russian and English on the Synod web site.

                In English:

                http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/history/1933epistle.html

                In Russian:

                http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/Poslania/poslanie.sobor.1933.html

                Here are some quotes:

                "As regards relations toward the Mother Church, the Russian ecclesial
                organization abroad has considered itself no more than a branch of the
                latter, bound organically to the whole body of the Church of Russia, even
                though temporarily deprived only of outward unity with the latter in
                ecclesiastical administration."

                "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 Russia."

                "We are taking fully into account the extraordinary difficulties of the
                position of Metropolitan Sergius, who is now the de facto head of the
                Church of Russia, and are aware of the heavy burden of responsibility for
                the fate of the latter, which lies upon him. No one, therefore, has the
                audacity to accuse him for the mere attempt to enter into dialogue with the
                Soviet regime so as to obtain legal standing for the Church of Russia. Not
                without foundation does the deputy locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne
                say in his aforementioned Declaration that only "armchair dreamers can
                think that such a vast community as our Orthodox Church, with all its
                organization, can exist peacefully in a country while walling itself off
                from the authorities." While the Church exists on earth, it remains closely
                bound up with the fates of human society and cannot be imagined outside
                time and space. It is impossible for it to refrain from all contact with a
                powerful societal organization such as the government; otherwise it would
                have to leave the world."


                As far as concrete resolutions of a Sobor of the Church Abroad, read the
                Resolution of the 1923 Sobor of Bishops:

                "Representatives of dioceses found beyond the boundaries of Russia jointly
                express the voice of the free Russian Church Abroad, but neither any
                individual person, nor the Sobor of hierarchs of these dioceses represents
                an authority, which would have the rights that are held in their fullness
                by the All-Russian Church represented by its lawful hierarchy. All of the
                Russian Orthodox bishops found beyond the borders of Russia are an
                inseparable part of the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchate."

                Read also the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad of 1938:

                "There was DISCUSSION about concelebration with clergy found in the
                jurisdiction of Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.

                "METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergy who arrive from Russia who
                had been part of the named jurisdiction are immediately allowed into
                prayerful communion, and he brings up the opinion of Metropolitan Kyrill,
                found in his Epistle printed in "Church Life," that the sin of Metropolitan
                Sergius does not extend to the clergy subordinate to him.

                "IT WAS RESOLVED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful
                communion and concelebration with the clergy of Metropolitan Sergius."

                [In Russian,

                POSTANOVILI: Priznat', chto ne imeetsia prepiatstvij k molitvennomu
                obshcheniju i sosluzheniju s dukhovenstvom Mitropolita Sergija."]

                The Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad in 1946, wrote:


                "The Higher Church Administration in Russia in the person of the current
                Head of the Russian Church Patriarch Alexey ["v litse nyneshniago Glavy
                Russkoi Tserkvi Patriarkha Aleksiia"] has more than once already addressed
                the bishops abroad with an exhortation to enter into canonical submission
                to the Patriarchate, but, listening to the directions of our pastoral
                conscience, we do not find it morally possible to acquiesce to these
                appeals as long as the Higher Church Administration in Russia is found in
                an unnatural union with the atheistic power and as long as the whole
                Russian Church is deprived of true freedom, which is inherent in it by its
                Divine nature." (Signed by Metropolitan Anastassy and all the Bishops of
                the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and dated April 27/May 10 1946).


                From the Official Epistle of the Hierarchical Sobor, dated June 4/17,
                1964, signed by Metropolitan Philaret and all of the bishops of the Church
                Abroad, which clearly demonstrates that grace and the Holy Mysteries abide
                in the Moscow Patriarchate:

                "They [the god-opposing Communists] have contrived a new, truly diabolical
                plan in
                their war against the faithful: it is now forbidden by the godless government
                of the USSR for children and young men and women from the ages of 3 to 18
                to be allowed into God's churches and to be communed with the Body and
                Blood of Christ. And in order to mock the Church even more, this directive
                by the authorities has to be enforced by the clergymen themselves -- they
                are the ones who must prohibit youth from approaching the Chalice of Christ
                and demand the removal of children and youth from the churches".

                and


                "But the true situation is this: not many clergymen are left in the USSR,
                not many open churches are left, the faithful rarely can attend services.
                And now even at these rare services, which Christians, if they are not
                extremely old men and women, attend at the risk of being tagged by the
                active Soviet "watchers" and thus lose their jobs--parents cannot bring
                their young children, who, in their tender childhood and youth, so need
                graceful communion to the Fountain of life--to Christ the Savior, just as
                young little saplings need the light and the warmth of the sun."


                =======================

                I could go on with more quotations from official Sobor documents, from the
                Sobors of 1974, 1981, 1987, 1991, 1994, etc., right up to 2001, but the
                questions concerned the **historical** position of the Church Abroad--and I
                believe the quotations above are fully illustrative of that position.

                Reading all of these Resolutions and official Sobor Epistles--from the
                20's, 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, etc.--one does not find a single statement
                that the Moscow Patriarchate is graceless or that its Mysteries are
                invalid, or that it is outside the Church.

                And all of these Resolutions and Epistles underline the **temporary**
                nature of the Church Abroad, and the need to strive towards the eventual
                unity of the Church of Russia,


                With love in Christ,

                Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
              • Kiril Bart
                I m looking for famous letter of Fr. Roman Lukianov, where he warned ROCOR that it will become a sect if not unified with MP. Does anyone have a link to share?
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm looking for famous letter of Fr. Roman Lukianov,
                  where he warned ROCOR that it will become a sect if
                  not unified with MP. Does anyone have a link to share?
                  Also I would be appreciated if someone can provide me
                  with sermon of late Vl. Mitrophan about Israel in our
                  Church.
                  Thank you, sinful subdeacon Kirill

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                • goossir
                  Dear kirill, Please find hereunder the text from http://www.bostonrusschurch.org/index_en.html and a reply to it in:
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear kirill,

                    Please find hereunder the text from
                    http://www.bostonrusschurch.org/index_en.html and a reply to it in:
                    http://www.monasterypress.com/pathroca.html
                    Irina P.

                    --Mitred Archpriest Roman Lukianov, Parish Rector,
                    THE PATH OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD
                    Observations and Thoughts of an Old Priest.

                    (Translated and revised by the Author)

                    In connection with the recent turmoil within the Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad, I think it would be beneficial to share
                    certain observations and reflections. Recently there has been much
                    talk about the path followed by the ROCA. Now it has become obvious
                    that the «straight» path which some people refer to, has led in the
                    end to a schism within the ROCA. This schism has been ripening over
                    many years. In order to understand what is going on, one should
                    look first of all at the Guideposts that actually have determined
                    the course of the ROCA throughout its history.

                    The First Guidepost was Ukaz (Decree) No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon,
                    dated Nov. 20, 1920, paragraph 2: «In the event that a diocese, as
                    a result of movement of the front lines, or changes of state
                    borders, finds itself out of communication with the highest church
                    authority, or that the highest church authority itself, headed by
                    the Holy Patriarch, for some reason terminates its activity, the
                    diocesan bishop should immediately contact the bishops of the
                    adjacent dioceses in order to organize a higher level of church
                    administration for several dioceses which find themselves in similar
                    circumstances (in the form of a temporary church government or a
                    metropolitan district, or in some other way)».

                    This Ukaz was formulated at the time of the Civil War in
                    Russia, whose consequence was the departure abroad of a sizeable lay
                    flock (estimated at over a million), and of a substantial number of
                    clergy and bishops.

                    The Second Guidepost on the path of the ROCA were the early Sobors
                    (Councils) of Bishops Abroad, presided over by Metropolitan Anthony
                    (Khrapovitsky): the First Sobor in Constantinople in 1920, in which
                    34 bishops participated in person or in writing; the First Sobor of
                    representatives of the entire ROCA, held in the town of Sremskii
                    Karlovtsi in Serbia in 1921; and the Sobor of Bishops Abroad on
                    September 13, 1922, which estabilished a Temporary Synod of Bishops,
                    based on the above-quoted Ukaz No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon. At
                    those Sobors, which led to the formal establishment of the Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad, were represented parishes in Europe, the
                    Balkans, the Near and Far East, North and South America, including
                    the soon-to-be-separated Metropolitan Districts: one known as the
                    Paris Metropolia, presently under the Patriarch of Constantinople,
                    and the other known today as the Orthodox Church in America in the
                    USA.

                    The Third Guidepost was the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of
                    the ROCA, in September of 1927, which rejected the Declaration of
                    Metropolitan Sergius and defined the following rule: «The part of
                    the All-Russian Church located abroad must cease all administrative
                    relations with the church administra-tion in Moscow…until
                    restoration of normal relations with Russia and until the liberation
                    of our Church from persecutions by the godless Soviet authorities…
                    The part of the Russian Church that finds itself abroad considers
                    itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the Great
                    Russian Church. It does not separate itself from its Mother Church
                    and does not consider itself autocephalous.» This Resolution makes
                    it clear that the emigre Hierarchs, while rejecting what later
                    became known as «Sergianism», did not separate the part of the
                    church that was abroad from that in the homeland, thus showing
                    compassion to those who did not withstand the terror. At about that
                    time evolved the concept of the three parts of the Russian Church:
                    the «Church enslaved», that is, the Moscow Patriarchate;
                    the «Catacomb Church», i.e, the secret, persecuted, underground
                    Church of confessors within the borders of the Soviet Union; and
                    the «Russian Orthodox Church Abroad», which was the free voice of
                    the whole Russian Church.

                    The Fourth Guidepost was the adoption of the Temporary Polozheniye
                    (Fundamental Law) of the ROCA by the General Sobor of Bishops on
                    September 22-24, 1936. Its first paragraph states: «The Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad, which consists of dioceses, spiritual
                    missions, and parishes outside Russia, is an inseparable part of the
                    Russian Orthodox Church, which exists temporarily under autonomous
                    administration». This Sobor, in effect, established an orderly
                    administrative leadership of the ROCA for the entire period of its
                    independent existence.

                    The Fifth Guidepost is defined by the Reply of the Blessed
                    Metropolitan Anastassy in 1945, and of the Bishops' Sobor in Munich
                    in 1946, in response to the address of the Patriarch of Moscow
                    Aleksey I, who called for reunification after the Second World War.
                    During this terrible period of manhunts by Soviet agents for
                    displaced persons and non-returnees all across Western Europe,
                    Metropolitan Anastassy, reasserting the necessity for the continued
                    existence of independent ROCA, writes: «The bishops, the clergy and
                    the laymen, subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Synod of Bishops
                    Abroad, never broke canonical, prayer, or spiritual unity with their
                    Mother Church.» The Sobor of Bishops in its message, writes to the
                    Patriarch of Moscow: «We trust that…on the bones of martyrs a new
                    free Russia will arise, strong in Orthodox truth and brotherly love…
                    then all of her scattered sons, without any pressure or force, but
                    freely and joyfully, will strive to return from all over into her
                    maternal embrace. Recognizing our unbroken spiritual bonds with our
                    homeland, we sincerely pray to the Lord that he may speedily heal
                    the wounds inflicted upon our homeland by this heavy, although
                    victorious, war, and bless it with peace and well-being.» This
                    message was signed by Metropolitan Anastassy, three archbishops, and
                    ten bishops.

                    The Sixth Guidepost, and probably the most important one in our
                    days, is the Corporate Charter in the USA of our Church Abroad,
                    which was signed by its most prominent Hierarchs, Metropolitan
                    Anastassy, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), Archbishop Tikhon,
                    Archbishop Hieronim, Bishop Seraphim, and Bishop Nikon, and
                    registered in the State of New York on April 30th, 1952. It states:

                    «II. The principal aim and purpose of the corporation
                    shall be to provide for the administration of dioceses, missions,
                    monasteries, churches and parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church,
                    which are located in the United States of America, the Dominion of
                    Canada and other countries which are outside of the Soviet Union and
                    the satellites of the Soviet Union, but including dioceses,
                    missions, monasteries and churches which recognise the corporation
                    as the supreme ecclesiastical authority over them.

                    «III. The corporation in its corporate functions and
                    operation, and all of its trustees and officers, shall maintain no
                    relations whatever with the Russian ecclesiastical authorities and
                    organizations within the boundaries of the Soviet Union and the
                    satellites of the Soviet Union, so long as the said countries, or
                    any of them, shall be subject to Communist rule.»

                    Further on, the next paragraph of the Charter refers to
                    Ukaz #362 of Patriarch Tikhon of November 20, 1920, and its
                    acceptance by the Sobor of Bishops on November 24, 1936. This

                    demonstrates that Metropolitan Anastassy and all Bishops,
                    signatories of the Charter, just as, in their time, Metropolitan
                    Anthony and the founding Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad,
                    accepted the fact that the validity of the Ukaz of Patriarch Tikhon,
                    which, in effect, is his Patriarchal Blessing, is limited in time.
                    In turn, they also Blessed the time-limited independent existence of
                    the Russian Church Abroad until the fall of the Communist regime.

                    The Seventh Guidepost is again the Polozheniye
                    (Fundamental Law) of the Russian Church Abroad, revised and approved
                    by the Sobor of Bishops, presided over by Metropolitan Anastassy, in
                    1956. Its paragraph #1 states: «The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
                    is an inseparable part of the Local (Pomestnoy) Orthodox Church,
                    temporarily self-governing until the fall in Russia of the godless
                    authorities, in compliance with the Decision of Holy Patriarch
                    Tikhon and the Highest Church Council of the Church in Russia of
                    7 /20 November 1920, #362.» The same Paragraph is repeated word for
                    word in the Polozheniye, reviewed and re-approved in 1964.

                    In 1956 the Reply of Metropolitan Anastassy was reprinted by Holy
                    Trinity Monastery. The same themes were voiced by Archbishop Vitaly
                    (Maximenko) of blessed memory, in his work «Motifs of My Life».
                    Archbishop Andrew (Fr.Adrian) used to refer to the Church Abroad as
                    a temporarily self-governing Diocese of the Russian Church. Holy
                    Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco wrote: «The Russian
                    Church Abroad does not separate itself spiritually from the
                    suffering Mother Church. She offers up prayers for her, preserves
                    her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time will reunite with
                    her, when the reasons which have caused the separation will have
                    vanished.» Similar statements were made by many other archpastors,
                    priests and writers in the church press. It is from them that our
                    generation, which came into the Church after the end of the Second
                    World War in 1945, has acquired the understanding of the temporary
                    existence of the independent Russian Church Abroad until the
                    liberation of Russia from the Communist yoke. The calls of
                    Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret of blessed memory to abstain
                    even from conventional contacts with the representatives of the
                    Moscow Patriarchate had to do with the period of the 1960s and
                    1970s, when the Soviet government began to use the Church for its
                    own ends througout the Western world. And Metropolitan Vitaly was
                    completely correct when he said that we cannot declare that the
                    Church in Russia is without Grace, but certain specific deeds of its
                    clergy, performed on orders of the godless authorities in order to
                    harm the Church, are, of course, graceless.

                    In 1991 the Communist regime fell and the totalitarian
                    Soviet state ceased to exist. The leftovers of the Soviet mentality
                    and even of the State government still remain, but the country and
                    the Church consider themselves free and feel free, and there is no
                    more party ideology to interfere with Church communications.
                    Therefore, with the fall of the Soviet government and cessation of
                    terror in 1991, there also ended the time span, blessed by Holy
                    Patriarch Tikhon and the founding Archpastors of the Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad for the existence of ROCA as a separate
                    entity.

                    The Path marked by the abovementioned Guideposts began
                    to be subtly changed with the secret (and canonically questionable)
                    consecration of Bishop Varnava (Barnabas) in about 1984. A new
                    ideology began to be evident, subtly but deeply russophobic. Under
                    the guise of restoring the archpastorship of the Catacomb Church,
                    new church bodies began to be created within Russia, subordinate to
                    the Church Abroad. The old Catacomb Church, which was highly
                    respected as the Church of true confessors, was soon forgotten. The
                    new ideology promoted the idea that the Russian Church Abroad is the
                    only true Church, and the bearer of the restoration of the Church in
                    Russia. This led to estrangement and unnecessary confrontations
                    between the Russian Church Abroad and the Mother Church, and then to
                    a strange set of attitudes and actions on the part of some ROCA
                    bishops, first in Russia, and more recently abroad. Now that these
                    bishops and their followers have expelled themselves from the Church
                    Abroad and created their own church organizations, the Church Abroad
                    has regained freedom of opinion and an opportunity to return to the
                    path blessed by Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Founding First
                    Hierarchs and Archpastors of blessed memory.

                    The new obstacles to normal relations that have been
                    brought forward within our Church Abroad, such as the absence of
                    repentance, failure to glorify the Royal New Martyrs, Sergianism,
                    and participation in the ecumenical movement, have today ceased to
                    be insurmountable. Back in 1993 His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow
                    and All Russia, Alexey II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox
                    Church proclaimed, before God and the Russian people, repentance for
                    the sin of regicide. Their Epistle on the 75th anniversary of the
                    murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family states: «With
                    augmented prayer and great pain in our hearts we commemorate this
                    sad Anniversary… The sin of regicide, which took place amid the
                    indifference of the citizens of Russia, has not been repented of by
                    our people. Being a transgression of both the law of God and civil
                    law, this sin weighs extremely heavily upon the souls of our people,
                    upon its moral conscience. 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! We call to repentance all of our people, all of our
                    children, regardless of their political views and opinions about
                    history, regardless of their attitude toward the idea of Monarchy
                    and the personality of the last Russian Tsar. Repentance of the sin
                    committed by our forefathers should become for us a banner of
                    unity. May today's sad date unite us in prayer with the Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad, with whom we so sincerely desire restoration
                    of spiritual unity in faithfulness to the Spirit of Christ... .»
                    The call was, unfortunately, ignored.

                    The Royal New Martyrs were glorified, and Sergianism and
                    ecumenism rejected, by the Jubilee Sobor of Bishops of the Russian
                    Orthodox Church in the year 2000. Sergianism, being in fact not a
                    doctrine but a mode of behavior, was rejected in the
                    chapter «Fundamental Conceptions of Society» in the published Acts
                    of the Sobor, and ecumenism in the chapter «Fundamental Principles
                    of Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Heterodox.» In October
                    of 2001, in his «Brotherly Epistle to the Sobor of Bishops of the
                    Russian Church Abroad,» His Holiness, Patriarch Alexey II again
                    called for mutual forgiveness and restoration of liturgical
                    communion. The answer of the ROCA Sobor of Bishops was only mildly
                    encouraging.

                    Just as in the Church in Russia the veneration of the
                    Royal New Martyrs was widely practiced by believers long before
                    their official glorification, so it is that parishioners of the
                    Church Abroad, when they visit Russia, pray, confess, and partake of
                    Holy Communion in their beloved churches and monasteries of the
                    Moscow Patriarchate, and have humbly done so for many years, without
                    making an issue of it. And after visiting Russia, many of our
                    clergy, including American converts to Orthodoxy, state in private
                    conversations that those who say there is no Grace in the churches
                    of the Moscow Patriarchate do not know what they are talking about.
                    As no one has wanted to provoke the ill winds of dissension within
                    our ranks, it has been customary not to make such observations
                    publicly. However, now that the bearers of ill winds have expelled
                    themselves from the Church, showing no respect for anyone including
                    the Sobor of Bishops, the possibility has arisen again, and perhaps
                    for the last time, of restoring God-pleasing spiritual unity and
                    normal relations with the whole Mother Church.

                    Sinful individuals and bad deeds have always existed,
                    exist now, and will continue to exist both there, in Russia, and
                    here in our midst. But a division which was lawful, must not be
                    allowed to evolve into sectarian schism, a phenomenon much discussed
                    and feared by many of our priests and parishioners, both, Russians
                    and Americans. If the Russian Church Abroad is allowed to become «a
                    broken-off vine», it will be doomed to a slow but inevitable drying
                    out, an atrophy from which no collection of selected quotations from
                    the Canons will save us. On the other hand, the restoration of
                    Eucharistic and Canonical unity with the Mother Church, with an
                    autonomous administration of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
                    Russia, appears to be the natural next Guidepost in the current
                    History of the Church of the Great Russian Exodus into Diaspora.


                    Archpriest Roman Lukianov

                    December 11,
                    2001 Boston

                    New Martyr Metropolitan Seraphim

                    (Chichagov) of St. Petersburg.

                    Emphases are the author's.


                    References: Óêàç Ïàòðèàðõà Òèõîíà ¹ 362, 1920 ã. [Ukase of
                    Patriarch Tikhon No. 362, 1920.]
                    Ïîëîæåíèÿ ...1936, 1956 è 1964 ãã. [Statutes… 1936, 1956, and
                    1964.]
                    Îòâåò Ìèòð. Àíàñòàñèÿ â 1945 ã. Äæîðäàíâèëü, 1956 ã. [Reply of
                    Metr. Anastassy in 1945. Jordanville, 1965.]
                    Corporate Charter of the Russian Church Abroad, 1952, New York, N.Y.
                    Ðóññêàÿ Ç. Ö., Àðõèåï. Èîàíí (Ìàêñèìîâè÷), Äæîðäàíâèëü, 1991 ã.
                    [The Russian Church Abroad, Archbishop
                    John (Maximovich), Jordanville, 1991.]
                    Îáçîð Èñòîðèè Ð.Ö., Ïðîô. È.Ì.Àíäðååâà, Äæîðäàíâèëü, 1952 ã.
                    [Survey of the History of the Russian Church,
                    Professor I. M. Andreev, Jordanville, 1991.]
                    Ìîòèâû Ìîåé Æèçíè, Àðõèåï. Âèòàëèé (Ìàêñèìåíêî). [Motifs of My
                    Life, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko).]
                    Îáðàùåíèÿ Ñâÿòåéøåãî Ïàòðèàðõà Àëåêñèÿ II, 1993, 2001 ãã. [Addresses
                    of All-Holy Patriarch Alexey II, 1993, 2001.]

                    - In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
                    > I'm looking for famous letter of Fr. Roman Lukianov,
                    > where he warned ROCOR that it will become a sect if
                    > not unified with MP. Does anyone have a link to share?
                    > Also I would be appreciated if someone can provide me
                    > with sermon of late Vl. Mitrophan about Israel in our
                    > Church.
                    > Thank you, sinful subdeacon Kirill
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                    > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                  • elisabeth shohov
                    I certainly may in fact be able to procure a copy if I can track it down. But before I do, I would like to know beforehand what exactly why you have such an
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jan 18, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I certainly may in fact be able to procure a copy if I can track it down. But before I do, I would like to know beforehand what exactly why you have such an interest in the sermon. Thanks, E
                      Kiril Bart <kirbart@...> wrote: I'm looking for famous letter of Fr. Roman Lukianov,
                      where he warned ROCOR that it will become a sect if
                      not unified with MP. Does anyone have a link to share?
                      Also I would be appreciated if someone can provide me
                      with sermon of late Vl. Mitrophan about Israel in our
                      Church.
                      Thank you, sinful subdeacon Kirill

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

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