Bishop Gregory Grabbe on the Moscow Patriarchate's Apostolic Succession and Sacraments

Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) on the Apostolic Succession and Sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate

83. Letter to V.N. Lozovoy, dated March 1/14, 1991.

<...>

Your question about whether the Moscow Patriarchate has preserved apostolic succession and whether the sacraments performed within it are valid is an extremely complex matter and requires particular caution in answering.

If you compare the Orthodox Church to a mighty tree, perhaps the answer will seem more comprehensible. Here grows a beautiful tree, but you suddenly notice that some of its branches begin to wither, turn yellow, and even completely dry up. It is very difficult to precisely determine the moment of irrevocable drying, for the gardener always harbors the hope that the branch may yet recover. Therefore, it is impossible to pinpoint the exact moment when the tree's sap no longer nourishes a particular branch. We only see that the tree is undoubtedly unwell. Consequently, the Church has never been quick to cut off a diseased branch, as was the case, for instance, with Roman Catholicism: the transitional period lasted about two centuries before the Church could definitively determine that the Catholics had irretrievably fallen into heresy.

The Church recognizes a range of gradations in its condemnation of a diseased hierarchy. For instance, there are cases where communion is severed only with the episcopate, but it is permitted with the lower clergy. There are also cases where the latter has ceased as well, but laypeople are still allowed to partake of the chalice, as they are less knowledgeable in complex ecclesiastical matters. For example, in our practice with the so-called "American Autocephalous Church," communion was interrupted with their hierarchy and clergy, but laypeople were admitted to Communion. However, on an individual basis, the priest explained to them during confession the reason for this situation and advised them to make a decision rather than drift from place to place.

The Church Abroad has absolutely no communion with the hierarchy or clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate due to the Sergianist betrayal, ecumenism, and a number of other significant reasons. When its clergy are received by us, it is always through a Bishop and confession. In certain cases, if the given clergyman held a significant position in the Patriarchate, then also through public repentance from the ambo during the Hours. For example, this was the case with Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), now Bishop of Suzdal within the Free Russian Orthodox Church.

To your question about whether there is hope for the revival of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate, I would personally respond negatively. Firstly, it entirely consists of individuals selected by the authorities, who for decades have proven their obedience to the godless regime. Secondly, even with an easing of internal circumstances, not a single hierarch of the Moscow Patriarchate has dared to condemn the Sergianist betrayal and the ecumenical heresy, so I fear that your assumption that it has become a barren fig tree is correct.

It is impossible to expect a smoothing of relations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the godless authorities as long as the Patriarchate continues to obey the KGB. However, since this is not mandatory for everyone within the state, cooperation is possible with non-party institutions. Metropolitan Sergius attempted to adapt to the party, and this led to the complete enslavement of the Church. The direct goal of the godless government is the total eradication of all religion. Therefore, as long as the Soviet government does not abandon the "Leninist principles," the Church cannot avoid being persecuted or oppressed. The only question is the degree of this persecution, which depends on the political advantage at a given moment.

The Ukrainian "Autocephalous" Church, of course, cannot in any way be considered legitimate. Apostolic succession is a kind of conduit of grace. If a bishop or some clergyman commits the sin of falling away from the Church, the legitimacy of his ordination ceases at that point. What remains is only an external conduit (bishop) without energy (grace). I would by no means recommend communion with these Ukrainians. The All-Russian Council of 1917 blessed autonomy, not autocephaly. In other words, the currently existing autonomous Ukrainian Church is, at present, no different from the Moscow Patriarchate.

To your question about the attitude toward a spiritual father suffering from "compromises," I can say that in matters of Church truth and righteousness, the Church has never known nor does it know compromises. There is the term "economy" (condescension), which is very popular in our age, but it has meaning only under the indispensable condition that people are aware that condescension is being extended to them and that they repent of the sin committed.

About the miracles in the Lavra: such often occur despite the sins of the hierarchy, for the support of the faith of "these little ones."

<...>

Russian source: https://vishegorod.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=741&Itemid=179