Three Examples of the Moderate Confession of Russian True Orthodoxy

 

Three Examples of the Moderate Confession of Russian True Orthodoxy in the 1990s and 2000s:

Bishop Lazarus of Tambov, Protopriest Lev Lebedeff and Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk

 

Fr. Victor [Potapov]: Vladika, on one hand you do not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate; you did not become a member of the MP, but, as I understand, you do not deny the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate. Your branch of the Catacomb Church does not rebaptize, it does not re-ordain priests. 

Bishop Lazarus [of Tambov]: This is not my personal opinion; it is the position of those well-educated priests with whom I associated. Fr. Vladimir Krivoliutsky belonged to a group led by Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan, a moderate. Fr. Sergius Tigrov was of like mind. They recognized the Mysteries [of the Moscow Patriarchate] because dogmatically there were no violations concerning the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, and the Mysteries were performed according to the rules of the office. True, they do not immerse, but after all, there were periods in the Church's history - in the time of Hieromartyr Cyprian, for example - when the Church recognized baptism by sprinkling by virtue of necessity. Not because this was the only way: it should be performed by immersion, and we immerse. But this is not always possible. When I was moving about the country, sometimes there was no water, sometimes there was no suitable vessel, and yet I had to perform the baptism; it couldn't be postponed. And so, we would simply pour water over the head, in the name of the Holy Trinity. And we accept the Mystery of Chrismation as a lawful baptism.

We likewise do not deny their ordinations. Re-ordinations were performed only for Renovationists, following the instructions of Patriarch Tikhon. And there were exceptions even here. If a Renovationist bishop renounced his monastic vows, or if the bishop were -married, the ordinations he performed were not considered canonical. But if he were an old bishop, that is, if the bishop performing the ordination were a monk who hadn't renounced his vows, in that case Patriarch Tikhon accepted the ordination.

The Arians weren't all rebaptized, the Monophysites weren't rebaptized; all that was required was that they renounce their heresy. The Iconoclasts weren't rebaptized... One can find many examples. Roman Catholics were and were not rebaptized, depending on the times and the local Church. Even in Russia there was no consistent policy with regard to receiving Roman Catholics: some patriarchs in the 17th century rebaptized, others did not. And as much as a final judgment on the Moscow Patriarchate has not been made, we consider that the grace of God has not left the people. After all, there are many pious people [within the Moscow Patriarchate], many good priests grieving, tormented. Not everyone knows of the Catacomb Church, and not everyone can emigrate; they are, after all, in bonds, in prison. For this reason, with respect to those living in the Soviet Union there are no such strict demands. Those in freedom, however, are of course to be faulted for belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate; with regard to them it's an entirely different matter. But for those in bends there is a certain condescension. After all, not everyone is to blame; a long time has passed.

- Orthodox America, Issue 100, Vol. X, No. 10, June 1990.

+ + +

…As for the intention of Vl. Metropolitan [Vitaly] to write about the "gracelessness" of the MP, I am convinced that this would be premature. In my "Appeal" to the Metropolitan, which Fr. Benjamin presented, it is shown that the question of the validity or invalidity of the sacraments in the MP and other ecumenical Orthodox Churches is just a question for now. It may well turn out (and apparently it is) that the sacraments are still performed there, but only by the grace of God and His condescension to people. Then they (the sacraments) certainly go on to dreadfully condemn the MP hierarchs themselves, and those who understand their apostasy and heresy, but being indifferent to the Truth, nevertheless resort to them.

It is necessary for some general Council of several truly Orthodox Churches to strongly condemn both Sergianism and Ecumenism, and personally those who are spreading all this, that is, the heresiarchs, and only then to declare that from now on the sacraments from these apostates, heretics, and werewolves are considered invalid.

But this requires a special blessing from God, so that with a clear conscience the fathers of such a Council could conclude: "It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us." [Acts 15:28] Otherwise, it will be the same as with the anathema of Ecumenism in 1983, when, contrary to the canons, no one was personally named as a heretic; and then Vl. Vitaly stated that this anathema did not apply to anyone at all, and was not an affirmation of the gracelessness of the ecumenical churches, but was, as it were, only a warning for his own, for the members of ROCOR... So, this is not the first time we have "made the whole world laugh," as you put it…

- Letter of Protopriest Lev Lebedeff to Deacon Herman Ivanov-Treenadzaty, dated 7 Nov 1997, Kursk, Russia.

+ + +

There may be various private opinions on the matter under discussion, as there were among the Holy Fathers. But the final word always belongs to the conciliar mind of the Church…

[I]n our individual judgments we can recognize or deny the validity of the sacraments of the MP, but we must keep in mind that we ourselves cannot pass final judgment on such a complex and important question, to which only the legitimate [All-Russian] Local Council has the power to give an answer.

Since the RTOC is not the fullness of the Local Russian Church, but only a part of the once united Russian Church, the Synod of Bishops of the RTOC cannot pass final judgment on the grace or gracelessness of the sacraments of the MP. Continuing in the tradition and ecclesiology of ROCOR, we acknowledge the validity of the determination of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR presided over by the blessed memory of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of September 12/25, 1974, In the context of this definition, it was decided: 

"Concerning the question of the presence or absence of grace in the New Calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church does not consider itself or any other Local Church to have the authority to make a final decision, since a categorical assessment of this matter can only be made by a duly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia.”

…As before, the final word on this difficult question belongs to the conciliar mind of the Church in accordance with the requirements of the Holy Canons and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Only the Council has the final and authoritative resolution of this question. Pending the decision of the Council, we can all make our private judgments on this question, discuss it, and exchange our opinions. But, once again, only the Council has the full authority to decide.

- Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia, On the Attitude of the RTOC Towards the Sergianist and Ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate, dated 20 Dec 2007, Voronezh, Russia.