[I]t is unilaterally impossible for
a bishop or the [ROCOR] Synod of Bishops to declare the New Calendarists
graceless, despite their errors and innovations.
- Metropolitan Philaret of New York to Metropolitan
Kallistos of Corinth, Краткий очерк экклезиологических и юрисдикционных
споров в Греческой Старостильной Церкви (“A Brief Sketch of the
Ecclesiological and Jurisdictional Disputes in the Greek Old Calendar Church”),
by S.V. Kryzhanovsky, p. 37, footnote 70.
Online:
https://antiorthodox.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/sketch-old-style.pdf
+++
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia considers the
introduction of the new style as an error that brought confusion into the life
of the Church and, ultimately, as the cause of schism. For this reason, she did
not, does not, and will not accept it, and avoids concelebrating with New
Calendarists. Regarding the question of the presence or absence of grace among
the New Calendarists, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia 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.
- Metropolitan Philaret, First Resolution of the Council of
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, September 12/25,
1974.
Online: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201974%20Rezol.htm
+++
7. Bishop Laurus reads an excerpt from a Greek newspaper and
the determination of the Synod of Bishops regarding the [Matthewite] Synod of
Bishop Andreas’ resolution to break communion with the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia.
Protopresbyter G. Grabbe reads a letter from Metropolitan
Epiphanius of Kition to the Council of Bishops.
Archbishop Vitaly believes that we should not accept any
demands. We are going our own way, occupying a certain position in the world
and cannot be influenced from the outside to violate the accepted position. The
Greeks want us to declare all New Calendarists schismatics and heretics,
deprived of Church grace, but this is not in our competence.
The Chairman [Metropolitan Philaret]
finds that the Council could confirm the Synod's determination and say that the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has never departed from its
long-established principles. It remains with what it professed at the time when it
received His Eminences Epiphanius and Kallistos into communion. If our Greek
brethren now believe that our position is un-Orthodox, it means that the act of
receiving them into communion is invalid for them, and they return to the
position they occupied before.
The Council agrees with the
Chairman.
- Protocol No. 7, Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia, 23 September/6 October 1976.
Online: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201976-Prot.htm
+++
By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock
from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put
before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner
or later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate
of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The
anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local
character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense significance
for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a
universal scale. The place of the Russian Church Abroad is now plain in the
conscience of all the Orthodox. The Lord has laid a great cross upon us, but it
is, however, no longer possible to remain silent, for continued silence would
be like a betrayal of the Truth, from which may the Lord deliver us all!
- “The Council of Bishops of 1983,” by Archbishop Vitaly of
Montreal.
Online:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j8fmWaW_kV6dF1SR8R-3rHna5ZSYRBAT/view?usp=sharing
+++
To perceive, to distinguish the true Church in the midst of
the hundreds of so-called churches, both large and small, one must bear in
mind, first of all, Her historical, unbroken visible succession in time, from
Christ Himself and His holy apostles, and, secondly, the pearl of truth within
this visible vessel, as within a shell of mother-of-pearl. The one cannot exist
without the other. These two characteristics pertain only to the universal
Orthodox Church, which consists of many local Churches. At the present time,
the majority of the local Churches have been shaken throughout by a dreadful
twofold blow: the New Calendar and the heresy of ecumenism. Despite this
lamentable situation, however, we dare not assert (and may God preserve us from
this, for such is the duty only of an Ecumenical Council!) that they are devoid
of the grace of God. We have pronounced an anathema upon the heresy of
ecumenism for the benefit of the faithful of our Church alone, yet we thereby
also call upon the local Churches (in a modest but firm, gentle but decisive
manner) to give serious thought to the implications of our action. This is the
role of our small, modest, somewhat persecuted, but always vigilant, true
Church. De facto, we concelebrate neither with the New Calendarists, nor
with the ecumenists; but if anyone of our clergy, indulging in ecclesiastical
leniency, has ventured to take part in such a concelebratìon, this isolated
fact in no way affects our stand for the Truth.
- 1986 Nativity of Christ Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly of
New York.
Online:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_b-p1W1po27Do9yKBuHg-lAqx0sRJrHB/view?usp=sharing
+++
There is no doubt that the Ecumenical Patriarchs, along with
the other heads of the local Orthodox Churches, by actively engaging in
Ecumenism, have placed themselves on the bench of the accused. However, the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not consider itself to have such
power and right as to pronounce judgment upon them, leaving this responsible
matter to a possible future lawful Ecumenical Council. Any other attempt at
condemnation would be a pitiable spectacle, incompatible with our honest
seventy-five-year-long Orthodox canonical stance along the thousand-year path
of the Russian Church’s history.
-
Metropolitan Vitaly of New York, letter dated December 18, 1996 / January 1,
1997.
Source:
https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/33147.html
+++
…Now we see that all the Patriarchs, absolutely all the
Patriarchs—I will use a mild word—have ‘slipped.’ Of course, who will judge
them? God forbid—it certainly won’t be us! We shall leave that thought once and
for all! Not us, and not even as some suggest to us… small… subdivisions of the
Greek Church, the Romanian Church, the Bulgarian Church, saying that we should
gather together… and then carry out…
God forbid! We will never go along with such a
mockery—never! The Russian Church Abroad will stand as it has always stood,
entirely alone in an incredible solitude, but we are not to blame for this
solitude. We have not taken a single step to be alone! We are alone only
because all others have departed from the two-thousand-year path of the Church
of Christ. They have departed—and that is a fact.
But the Greeks are always unreasonable, they always overdo
it, always go to extremes… But we do not even think of establishing any kind
of tribunal. God preserve us—we would be a laughingstock to the whole world if
we dared to do this! We simply cannot do it!
- Metropolitan Vitaly of New York, from a talk with the
clergy of the Western European Diocese at Lesna Monastery, June 24, 1997.
Source: О фарисейской «сверхправильности» и «сложном и
деликатном вопросе» 1 [On Pharisaic “Super-Correctness” and the “Complex
and Delicate Issue” ([Part] 1)], by Kirillov Vladimir Yurievich, dated March
15, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.