On the So-Called "Dispute about Grace"

Protopresbyter Valery Alexeev (1937-2011)

On the Issue of the So-called "Dispute about Grace"

The Lord Jesus Christ, founding the Church on earth, commanded His followers: That they all may be one (John 17:21), establishing this unity on the divine principle of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

On the mystery of the unity of the Catholic Church, St. Cyprian of Carthage once wrote: "The mystery of unity, this bond of inseparable harmony, is signified in the Gospel account of the tunic of the Lord Jesus Christ. The tunic was not divided or torn, but was kept whole for the one to whom it fell by lot and came into possession unspoiled and undivided (John 19:23–24). It possessed unity from above, coming from heaven from the Father, and therefore could not be torn by those who received it; but once and for all, it retained its strong and indivisible bond. Therefore, one who tears apart the Church of Christ cannot possess the garment of Christ. On the contrary, when, after Solomon's death, his kingdom and people were to be divided, the prophet Ahijah, meeting Jeroboam the king, tore his garment into twelve parts… (1 Kings 11:31, 32, 36). Thus, when the twelve tribes of Israel were to be divided, the prophet Ahijah tore his garment. But since the people of Christ are not to be divided, the tunic of Christ, woven for eternity, was not torn by those who possessed it: its inseparable strength of unity signifies the indivisible harmony of all of us who have put on Christ. Thus, by the mystical sign of His garment, the Lord prefigured the unity of the Church" [1].

The Church is not a national, civil, or political society, but a mystical one. A society where the hierarchy, which is "a condition of its integrity and unity" [2], through the Sacraments it performs, brings the faithful into the salvific life in Christ Jesus.

But the Sacraments can be effective, salvific, and grace-filled only when the hierarchy of the Church is lawful and valid.

The establishment of the Church hierarchy has its foundation in the Old Testament. Only from the house of Aaron came the high priests and priests. Only they were given the right to perform worship services. Any Israelite from another tribe who attempted to become a priest would not become one, but would instead be a usurper of the spiritual authority of priestly service.

The New Testament hierarchy acquires an even higher significance. Now, "the hierarchy existing in the Church is founded on the right of pastoral succession, imparted to it by the apostles, which in turn has its root in the authority of Jesus Christ, who sent the apostles, just as He Himself was sent by God [3]," writes St. Clement. That is, the New Testament hierarchy is founded by the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 4:14; 5:6) and has a Divine origin. "One of the fundamental norms of Church order is that the primary condition for the Church's organization is the divinely established Church hierarchy" [4], writes Professor Berdnikov.

Thus, the main point is the legitimacy of the Church hierarchy. And here a contrast immediately arises: if the legitimacy of the hierarchy is so important for salvation, then there can also be illegitimacy. This means that parallel to the Church, not only a legion of sectarian societies can exist, but also a pseudo-church, a quasi-church, or a graceless society that has been cut off or has fallen away from the body of the Church, and whose "hierarchy" unlawfully assumes the functions and prerogatives of the legitimate hierarchy.

This is felt particularly acutely in modern history, when religious societies that call themselves "churches" break away or separate from the One Church of Christ, with a proliferating illegitimate "hierarchy." Even within the Orthodox Local Churches, theories and doctrines, movements and trends arise that fundamentally contradict the Gospel teaching about the Church, about church governance, and about the purity of faith; when heresy is disguised as orthodoxy; when authoritarianism, under the guise of hierarchical authority, takes root, leading to the decline of conciliarity.

St. Basil the Great, in his first canonical rule, speaks not only of heretics, who "are completely separated from the Church and have lost the very faith" [5], but also of two other groups that have fallen away from the Church: schismatics and unauthorized assemblies (parasynagogues). Over time, another form of falling away from the Church emerged—a union or unia of a particular church region, or even a Local Church, with a heretical confession of faith or a "heretical church."

In his commentary on the 6th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, Bishop Nikodim Milaš,  based on the writings of the Fathers, writes: "In the works of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church, schismatics are quite often referred to by the name of heretics. In reality, we find many schisms that, at their inception, still adhere to Orthodoxy, but then, little by little, depart from it and adopt one or another heresy, from which they never separate again" [6].

Thus, schism (schisma) and unauthorized assembly (parasynagogue) by their nature are akin to heresy, as observed in the past and noticed in the present. Non-Orthodox teachings intrude into schismatic communities from the outside, and even within churches afflicted by schism or the violation of canonical order, new theories and doctrines emerge in their theology, theologoumena, specific actions of representatives of the hierarchy, and even in conciliar decrees—doctrines that contradict the Gospel teaching, patristic tradition, canonical law, that is, Sacred Tradition. Conversely, heterodoxy or heresy that arises at a high hierarchical level can become the cause of schism and lead to division.

In connection with the persistent suggestions from some individual members of our Church, as well as certain persons representing groups not under the jurisdiction of ROCOR, to have some of our clergy and, in general, the leadership of ROCOR express their stance toward the ROC MP, specifically to recognize and declare the "gracelessness" of this body, as well as of all the Local Churches that have accepted the "new calendar," the "new Paschalion," ecumenism, and modernism, I believe it is necessary not to examine the stance of the ROCOR hierarchy and its clergy on this matter, but to recall the stance of the Holy Canons, to whose obedience the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia builds its relationship with other religious groups.

The so-called "disputes about grace" arose in the Church even before the era of the Ecumenical Councils, which, along with the Holy Fathers, through their canons, established the Orthodox stance toward societies that had embraced heresy, schism, or unauthorized assemblies, toward societies that had fallen away from the Church.

Let us recall history. In the 3rd century, between the Roman and African Churches, as a result of a dispute about the baptism of heretics, "a rupture occurred, but not a schism" [7]. Let us also recall that Pope Stephen taught that grace was divided into two parts: the grace of Christ and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit, he claimed, belong only to the Church, while the grace of Christ is communicated in the baptism of heretical groups, which, although they have left the Church, are no longer pagans. The Church possesses grace in its fullness, but a part of grace, specifically the grace of Christ, extends beyond the boundaries of the Church.

The great Father of the Church, St. Cyprian of Carthage, disagreed with this teaching, writing that: "The Holy Spirit is not given by measure (non de mensura), but is poured out in full (totus) on each believer, and that the spiritual grace, which is equally (aequaliter) received by believers in baptism, is later either diminished or increased by certain behaviors and actions" [8]. However, it is important to note that these were personal theological opinions of saints canonized by the Church. For a certain period, there was no canonical or Eucharistic communion between them, but none of these Fathers accused the other of being without grace. Nevertheless, the opinion of St. Pope Stephen is closer to modern Roman Catholicism and ecumenism, while the opinion of St. Cyprian is entirely Orthodox.

The problem of grace in societies that have fallen away from the Church also concerned Blessed Augustine, who believed that the grace of the sacraments is indeed imparted in schismatic communities, but this grace, when separated from the Church, does not lead to salvation. It is not null, but rather misapplied. "Schismatic societies, which retained their ecclesiastical faith even after their separation from the Church," according to Blessed Augustine, "resembled streams that had separated from the main river. They contain the same faith, the same water, but are always in danger of drying up to no avail unless they reunite with the main course and enter into the unity of the principal flow... The Catholic Church represents that grace-filled atmosphere, without which salvation for an individual is impossible. The sacraments received outside the Catholic Church are like a fire that continues to burn, though covered by ash on the outside. This fire gives neither full warmth nor light. The smoldering coals must return to the pure atmosphere of the Catholic Church, and then the ash-covered fire will ignite into a bright, full flame" [9].

Such was the personal theological opinion of Blessed Augustine, although he did not claim infallibility in his judgments: "Let the reader," he writes, "if equally confident with me, proceed with me further; if equally hesitant, inquire with me; if noticing his own error, return to me; if noticing mine, correct me" [10].

And yet, the question of the presence of grace has, so to speak, two sides. The first is when certain "foolish schismatics" [11] fall away from the Church, and this separation develops into a "tearing of the body of Christ"—the establishment of a schismatic or unauthorized society (the creation of a new "church"), that is, a parasynagogue. Let us call this type of separation a schism from below, and in it, as we can see, participate "restless presbyters," their "accomplices" [12], and possibly bishops who "do not know their measure" [13]. Such schismatics, based on canons 13, 14, and the first half of canon 15 of the First-Second Council, if they are presbyters or deacons, "are to be deposed and deprived of all priestly honor"; monks and laypeople "are to be completely cut off from the Church"; and if it is a bishop, "he is to be deposed" [14].

But let us pay attention to the words "is to be." From what moment is a representative of the hierarchy, a layperson, or an entire society, having committed a crime against Sacred Tradition, having transgressed the Church canons, and especially the dogmas of faith—here primarily referring to a fall into schism or heresy—recognized (is to be) as an ecclesiastical criminal with all the ensuing consequences? What is the spiritual state of a schismatic society? Is its hierarchy lawful? Are its activities valid and grace-filled? Are its sacraments salvific? Or is the hierarchy of these societies a schismatic hierarchy that has usurped the right to the priesthood, and their liturgical services merely a profanation?

But let us note: The first instance, if the case is considered at the diocesan level, is the bishop's court (for clergy and laypersons), which imposes episcopal censure "before their offense is examined and proven by a council, and before the competent ecclesiastical court pronounces its final verdict" [15]. This is the court of first instance, and it is based on the canonical rule that has been violated, i.e., according to a declaratory judgment. 

Next come the synodal and conciliar courts; but the main point is that the rules of the judicial process must be followed. The defendant must be summoned to court. An accused bishop is summoned up to three times (by letter or by two sent bishops); if, after the third summons, the defendant does not appear, the court (the council of bishops) has the right to render its decision in the form of a contumacious judgment (for obstinacy). Only in this case, due to non-appearance, can the clergy member be judged in absentia. Moreover, in the judicial process, the accused bishop must be heard (specifically, they must hear him) by at least twelve bishops, a presbyter by six bishops and his hierarch, and a deacon by three. This is how the judicial process should be carried out based on the canonical law of the Orthodox Church, meaning the final condemnatory judgment is issued [where such a number of hierarchs is present, dispensing, Proto. V.A.]. In any other case, if the canonical judicial process is not followed, the court turns into a tribunal, and the synod or council that conducted this tribunal becomes "robber-like" and will have no canonical significance.

Such judicial proceedings are carried out based on the fact that in jurisprudence (including ecclesiastical law), there exists the concept of public law. Since "according to the canonical teaching of the Orthodox Church on the sacrament of priesthood, as important as its spiritual aspect is—the communication of divine authority to a certain person, through which grace is conferred—this authority is public law. When this authority is conferred upon someone, it is done through a solemn act of public law. As long as a person holds this authority, they may fully exercise it, and everything performed by them by virtue of this authority is valid, regardless of the fact that the person may be corrupt or unworthy of the authority. This unworthiness does not deprive them of their authority, but it may serve as a reason for it to be taken away. This authority can only be taken away through a solemn act of public law, through which the authority ceases with all its legal privileges, and especially, every act performed by them loses validity and significance.

Thus, if a bishop begins to preach heresy or organizes a schismatic society, this in itself does not yet deprive him of the right to perform ordinations. However, if such a bishop, for this or any other grave offense, is condemned by a council and finally deposed from his rank, he loses all hierarchical rights, because he has been deprived of the grace of priesthood and the right to serve as a mediator of that grace for others. In other words, such a person can no longer ordain anyone, because deposition, understood as final deposition, is the canonical act by which a person loses the sacred authority that belonged to them up until that point and returns to being a layperson, as they were before their ordination" [16].

For example, an ordination (whether to the priesthood or the episcopacy), when the canonical worthiness of the candidate is affirmed, is confirmed by the exclamation "Axios"; this is an act of public law! The ecclesiastical court (assuming its canonical legitimacy), when it renders its judgment regarding a clergyman or bishop who has transgressed the canons, confirms its decision with the proclamation "He is to be," and in extreme cases, by declaring "Anathema." This is also an act of public law!

It becomes more complex when schism, with elements of heresy, or vice versa, heresy with elements of schism, arises from above, when it is led by the highest hierarchs of the Church, drawing with them into heresy a large portion of the clergy and the people of God. A smaller portion, upholding true Orthodoxy, is not authorized to impose censures, let alone conduct judicial investigations, convene a Council of the Local Church, or condemn the heretics. In such cases, a state of canonical rupture occurs. "The Church people have the right and even the obligation to examine the faith of their bishop, and have the right to dogmatic disobedience [emphasized, Prot. V.A.] and protest—of course, again, from within the catholic fullness... A hermit in the desert may turn out to be more catholic than a 'crowded assembly of bishops.' It may happen that the catholic tradition of the Church is upheld in a single protest, while an empirical majority is led astray by newly introduced teachings" [17]. There have been many such precedents in the history of the Church, especially when an unorthodox doctrine arose in a particular church, progressing toward heresy, or when heresy gained dominance, spiritually afflicting a church, with heretical tares providing the grounds for a unia. True Orthodox Christians, especially the clergy, then sever their relations with those who have fallen into heresy, with those who are spiritually sick with heresy, becoming "non-commemorators" and opponents [18].

In this case, the second half of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council comes into effect, which declares: "For those who separate themselves from communion with their superior for some heresy condemned by the holy councils and Fathers, that is, when he publicly preaches heresy and openly teaches it in the Church, such persons, even if they protect themselves by breaking communion with the said bishop before conciliar examination, are not only not subject to the penalty prescribed by the canons but are worthy of the honor due to Orthodox Christians. For they have not condemned bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and have not torn the unity of the Church by schism, but have been zealous to protect the Church from schisms and divisions" [19].

Let us also listen to the commentary of Bishop Nikodim Milaš on this part of the 15th Canon: "But if any bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch begins to preach any heretical teaching contrary to Orthodoxy, then other clerics and church servants have the right and even the obligation to separate from the said bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch [otherwise, they, willingly or unwillingly, become 'participants' and 'co-conspirators,' emphasis by Prot. V.A.]. Moreover, for this, they will not only not be subject to any canonical punishment, but on the contrary, will be worthy of praise, because in doing so they did not condemn or rise up against true and legitimate bishops, but against false bishops and false teachers, and by this action, they did not create schism in the Church; on the contrary, to the extent of their ability, they freed the Church from schism and prevented division" [20].

St. Athanasius the Great divided societies afflicted by schism and heresy into "leaders of impiety" and "those led astray by necessity," and according to the definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, they are divided into "those leading in impiety," "those corrupted in false belief," and "those deceived and misled" [21].

The commentary on the 31st Apostolic Canon in the Greek Pedalion, p. 19, states: "Those who separate from a bishop before a conciliar investigation, because he publicly preaches any blasphemy or heresy, are not only not subject to the penance prescribed in the aforementioned 31st Apostolic Canon and the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, but are also worthy of the honor due to Orthodox Christians." Additionally, the "Commentary on the 29th (98th) Canons of the Council of Carthage, Syntagma of Matthew Blastares in the Russian translation, under letter 'A', page 56 of Chapter 17 states: "...without danger, one may disregard the penance." [22]

Now let us summarize. The first case is when certain representatives of the clergy and laity fall away from the Church, establish their own society, and despite being under censure, continue to perform ordinations and services, for which they are condemned by the ecclesiastical court for their schismatic or heretical activity. In such societies, the sacred hierarchy is completely cut off, and the salvific sacraments are abolished. The Church of Christ is not only One but also Unique. Any Christian society that has separated from the One Church is not the Church, but simply a religious community (denomination) built on the sand of its own inventions—a church of the deceitful [23], or an apostate church [24].

"Thus, the faithful are tested and the treacherous are revealed; thus, even before the Day of Judgment, the souls of the righteous are separated from the unrighteous, and the tares are separated from the wheat! Those who, without divine appointment, arrogantly take authority over reckless crowds, appoint themselves as leaders without lawful consecration, and usurp the name of bishop when no one grants them episcopacy, are separated" [25].

The second case involves certain hierarchs in a Local Church—bishops, metropolitans, or patriarchs—who begin to preach heresy; heretical theories and doctrines arise; representatives of the hierarchy participate in prayerful communion with heretics and blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Zealous defenders of Orthodoxy sever canonical and Eucharistic communion with such hierarchs before the ecclesiastical court, which will judge the guilty and exonerate the innocent, and, if possible, they join the Church that professes True Orthodoxy. But let us emphasize: this occurs before the ecclesiastical court! Therefore, an impartial canonical court must take place, which will examine the cases of the separated clergy and laity, establish their innocence or guilt, and either justify or condemn them. It will also consider the cases of the hierarchs—bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs—and either justify or condemn them.

In this regard, the opinion of Archpriest Lev Lebedev is quite convincing, as he writes: "When people object, saying that since the new heretics or apostates have already, through their teachings, fallen under the anathemas of the ancient councils of the Church, there is no need for a new trial, as they have already (through heresy) fallen away from the Church and are therefore already without grace, this is only half true or entirely false. This may be entirely true only in relation to those who have consciously separated themselves from the Church, forming their own 'new church.' But if we consider the case of those who, having fallen into apostasy or heresy, simultaneously claim that they have not fallen into any such thing, that they continue to be Orthodox, and count themselves as part of the Church, it is not enough for some Orthodox person to accuse them of heresy; a conciliar trial is necessary. Only such a court has the authority to cut off the persistently erring from the Body of Christ" [26].

Thus, as mentioned above, the act of public law, which, through ordination, bestowed the grace of the priesthood, is the same act of public law that, through a conciliar decision, deposes or excommunicates the guilty from the Church.

In this article, we do not address the question of ROCOR's relationship with other groups that broke away from the Church Abroad at different times. This is a question that will be answered by the All-Diaspora Council. However, it is worth touching on the following issue in light of certain subjective interpretations of the canonical status of the so-called "fragments of ROCOR" that have appeared on the Internet. These interpretations claim, based on Canon 87 of the Council of Carthage, that such groups are defined as "Minor Synods of Bishops." The claim is that "the fragments of ROCOR (...) are temporarily self-governing parts of ROCOR, led by Minor Synods. A Minor Synod is a Temporary Assembly of Bishops according to Canon 87 of the Council of Carthage. The participation of each bishop in such assemblies is purely voluntary and motivated by practical circumstances... If such an Assembly allows gross errors or canonical violations, each bishop is free to decide on his own non-compliance with that Assembly. This is how almost all of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, revered by our Church, acted when they separated from the Sergianist Synod."

The authors list the main "Minor Synods" after the "collapse of ROCOR" as: the Provisional Supreme Church Authority (PSCA) of ROCOR (with the caveat that it is still in the process of formation and has only one bishop, not a synod), the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC), the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), ROCOR(V), RosPTs, and others.

It should be immediately noted that ROCOR did not collapse into "fragments," but rather, a part of it separated and entered into unia with the Moscow Patriarchate. And while some of these mentioned groups are in the process of formation, others are in a state of disintegration or internal discord. ROCOR, even with just one canonically consecrated bishop, remains the successor of the full continuity of the Russian Church Abroad.

It should be noted that the "Sergianist Synod" was not a temporary "Assembly of Bishops," but an uncanonical structure that usurped power in the Church, created with the help of its persecutors and legitimized by the Declaration known in history as "Your joys are our joys," meaning it was validated by an act of public law. The New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia severed their ties with it not based on the 87th Canon of the Council of Carthage by creating "Minor Synod of Bishops," but in accordance with the second half of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council, and structured their actions on the basis of Decree No. 362 as self-governing dioceses of the All-Russian Orthodox Church.

The Synod of ROCOR (before May 17, 2007), that is, before the signing of the Act of Reconciliation, which was performed publicly—an act of public law, completed with a joint Eucharist—was not a temporary body but a permanent governing organ of the Church. Some groups had separated from it before this act of public law was carried out.

The 76th (87th) Canon of the Council of Carthage does not refer to "fragments" of the Church, in the formation of which elements of schism may be observed, but rather to bishops who, due to various difficulties, were unable to attend a diocesan council, and who "were not deprived of the right to perform sacred services, but were only temporarily suspended from communion with other bishops" [27]. Meanwhile, the 87th (98th) Canon of the same Council speaks of the inadmissibility of communion with a bishop who has avoided ecclesiastical judgment [28]. It is unclear which of these canons the authors of the online publication are referring to.

But let us return to our main question: the relationship with the ROC MP. After the emigration caused by the Bolshevik political turmoil, a significant part of Orthodox people and a portion of the hierarchy, outside the borders of our homeland, formed, based on Decree No. 362, another church body—besides the church body existing in the communist state, the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. This other body was the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), in free countries, flesh of the flesh in the unity of the body, as the overseas part of the All-Russian Orthodox Church.

The canonical rupture between the two branches of the Local Russian Church—ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland—occurred after the usurpation of supreme ecclesiastical authority by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), that is, through the creation of a schism, violating the 34th Apostolic Canon while the legitimate head of the ROC, Locum Tenens Peter, was still alive and imprisoned. This usurpation involved false testimony and blasphemy against the martyrs and confessors, which amounted to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as well as Sergius' direct and indirect complicity in the persecutions against them. ROCOR decisively expressed its stance on this matter and did not recognize the illegitimate censures. It also did not recognize the election of patriarchs, who were appointed by the God-fighting authorities in violation of the 30th Apostolic Canon, which declares: "If any bishop, using secular rulers, obtains episcopal authority in the Church through them, let him be deposed and excommunicated, and all those who communicate with him" [29]. In doing so, ROCOR severed relations with the hierarchy that had violated church canons and caused a schism.

True Orthodox Christians—hierarchs, clergy, monastics, and laity of the Russian catacombs—severed their relations with the Sergianist Synod as with a heretical body: "In the actions of Metropolitan Sergius, heresy is evident, and even something worse, which gives the right to withdraw 'before conciliar examination,' even from the Patriarch" [30]. "The apostates have transformed the Church of God from a union of grace for the salvation of man from sin and eternal destruction into a political organization (...), which constitutes a violation of the dogmatic teaching on the Holy Church (... 'I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church')" [31].

Clergy who firmly adhered to the positions of True Orthodoxy, when joining ROCOR, severed their relations with the Moscow Patriarchate "before conciliar examination" based on the second half of the 15th Canon of the First-Second Council. This was done on the grounds that the Moscow Patriarchate was preaching the ecumenical heresy through its concelebration with heretics and its acceptance of heretical documents such as the Balamand, Chambésy, and others.

The politicization, i.e., Sergianism, in the ROC MP continues. In the UOC, an autonomous region of the Moscow Patriarchate, hierarchs and monastics take on worldly responsibilities—engaging in parliamentary activities, in violation of the 6th Apostolic Canon: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, must not take upon himself worldly cares. Otherwise, let him be deposed from his sacred rank" [32].

The highest hierarchy of the ROC MP expressed its stance on the new calendar as early as 1947. While retaining the celebration of services in the homeland according to the old Julian calendar (to prevent the faithful from turning away from the new calendar), it allowed the celebration of services in its foreign exarchates and parishes according to the new calendar. Moreover, it did not break canonical communion with churches that celebrated Holy Pascha according to the Gregorian Paschalion, committing a violation of the 7th Apostolic Canon, which declares: "If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrates the holy day of Pascha before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed from his sacred rank" [33]. Furthermore, it violated the decrees of the Councils of Constantinople, effectively transitioning to the new calendar.

ROCOR also conciliarily defined its stance on the new calendar. On September 18, 1974, a resolution was adopted by the Council: "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake, one that brings disorder into church life and ultimately leads to schism. Therefore, it did not, does not, and will not accept it, and refrains from concelebration with those who follow the new calendar. As for the question of the grace or gracelessness of those who follow the new calendar, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia does not consider itself or any Local Church to have the right to make a categorical decision. In other words, a final ruling on this matter can only be made by a properly convened and authoritative Ecumenical Council, with the mandatory participation of the free Russian Church" [34] [this could perhaps refer to a Pan-Orthodox Assembly, Prot. V.A.].

Since 1961, the ROC MP entered the "World Council of Churches" and became a participant in the ecumenical movement. Moreover, the highest hierarchs began participating in joint prayers with representatives of heretical confessions and pagan religions, which is a violation of the 45th Apostolic Canon, which declares: "A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who has merely prayed with heretics shall be excommunicated. But if he has permitted them to perform anything as clergy in the Church, let him be deposed" [35].

Subsequently, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia also conciliarily expressed its stance on ecumenism. The Mansonville Council in 1983 declared: "To those who attack the Church of Christ and teach that it is divided into branches, which differ in doctrine and way of life, and who assert that the Church does not visibly exist, but will be formed from branches, schisms, and heresies united into one body: and to those who do not distinguish the true priesthood and sacraments of the Church from heretical ones, but teach that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics suffice for salvation: and to those who have communion with these heretics, or assist them, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism, considering it to be brotherly love and the unity of divided Christians: anathema."

The pronouncement of the anathema was communicated in the Council's Encyclical and the anathematization was included in the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

Some consider this anathema to have universal significance. Others, referring to an article by Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) [the future First Hierarch of ROCOR], view it differently: "Thus, by proclaiming the anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation, but at the same time, we have inadvertently placed upon the conscience of all the Local Churches a serious task that they must sooner or later resolve one way or another. The outcome of this decision will determine their future spiritual fate within the universal Orthodox Church. De jure, the anathema we proclaimed is purely of a local character, pertaining to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but de facto, it holds great historical and universal ecclesiastical significance, and only because ecumenism itself is a heresy of global scale. The place of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is visibly within the conscience of all Orthodox believers" [36].

I believe it is stated here with absolute clarity, and here’s why. The heresies that fill the vessel of the "World Council of Churches" indeed encompass all the heretical teachings that were anathematized by the Orthodox Church at various times and do not require re-anathematization. However, it was necessary at that historical moment to remind the hierarchs, clergy, and laity of ROCOR of this fact, because the epidemic of ecumenism, through its metastases, had begun to affect the episcopal and pastoral conscience of certain hierarchs and clergy. It was also necessary to remind the hierarchs of other churches, including the Moscow Patriarchate, that due to their transgressions against Sacred Tradition, according to the canonical rules that accuse them, they are losing their place within the Universal Orthodox Church. The attitude of "official" Orthodoxy toward the holy canons bears a strong resemblance to "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor" by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has no need to issue any declarations regarding the grace or gracelessness of churches with which it does not have Eucharistic communion. Confessor Prof. I.A. Andreyev once wrote: "The Spirit blows where it wills." "The Almighty Lord can, whenever He wishes, break the 'order of nature.' The grace of the Holy Spirit can manifest anywhere. Children were playing at the Holy Eucharist—and suddenly the Holy Spirit performed the sacred mystery" [37].

For us, first and foremost, the state of our own church community is important—our standing in the Truth, our faithfulness to the holy canons and the Patristic Tradition, our uncompromising stance in matters of faith, and our hope for a lawful All-Russian Local Council, which (if it adheres strictly to canonical principles) will be able to heal the wounds on the body of the Church. For both we and the New Martyrs severed our ties with those falling into heresy "before conciliar examination."

Secondly, another important aspect for us is the reception of clergy from "Sergianism" and the "ecumenical" churches. At present, this is done through the sacrament of repentance, not based on grace, but by economy. The hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate must reflect on themselves, on the state of their episcopal conscience, and show concern for the "uneducated people" entrusted to them [38], while also awaiting the All-Russian Local Council and the declaratory or condemnatory judgment of canonical public law. When it will take place—during whose lifetime—only God knows. At the Last Supper, all twelve dipped their fingers in the dish...

SOURCES

[1] Works of Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Treatises. Kyiv, 1891. pp. 181-182.

[2] Archimandrite Sylvester. The Doctrine of the Church in the First Three Centuries of Christianity. Kiev, 1872. p. 97.

[3] Archimandrite Sylvester. Op. cit. p. 99.

[4] Berdnikov, I.S., Prof. The Practical Significance of the Canons of the Ecumenical Church. Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. Vol. VIII.

[5] Rules of the Orthodox Church. Vol. II. 1912. p. 369.

[6] Rules of the Orthodox Church. Vol. I. p. 266.

[7] Bolotov, V.V., Prof. Lectures on the History of the Early Church. Vol. II. p. 429.

[8] Troitsky, Vladimir. Essays on the History of the Dogma of the Church. Sergiev Posad, 1913. p. 455.

[9] Bolotov. Op. cit. p. 422.

[10] Augustine. On the Trinity. BTM, 1989. No. 29. p. 262.

[11] Rules. Vol. II. Op. cit. p. 305.

[12] Ibid. p. 306.

[13] Ibid. p. 307.

[14] Ibid. pp. 307, 307.

[15] Rules. Vol. II. Op. cit. p. 306.

[16] Rules. Op. cit. p. 65.

[17] Florovsky, Fr. George. The Way. Paris, 1931. No. 31. pp. 26-27.

[18] Rules. Op. cit. pp. 307, 308.

[19] Rules. Op. cit. pp. 307-308.

[20] Ibid. p. 308.

[21] Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Kazan Theological Academy, 1873. pp. 100-103.

[22] The Old Calendar is Better Than Two New Ones. What is the Calendar Reform? Moscow, 2004. p. 91.

[23] Malinovsky, N., Archpriest. An Outline of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Sergiev Posad, 1912. p. 62.

[24] Akvilonov, E., Prof.-Archpriest. New Testament Teaching on the Church. St. Petersburg, 1904. p. 161.

[25] Works of Cyprian of Carthage. Op. cit. p. 185.

[26] Russian Pastor No. 30. San Francisco, 1998. pp. 49-50.

[27] Rules. Vol. II. Op. cit. p. 228.

[28] Ibid. p. 239.

[29] Rules. Vol. I. p. 91.

[30] Acts of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and Later Documents on the Succession of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority 1917-1943. Moscow, 1994. p. 585.

[31] Acts… Op. cit. pp. 583, 585.

[32] Rules. Vol. I. Op. cit. p. 64.

[33] Rules. Ibid. p. 65.

[34] Pillar of Fire. Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) of New York and Eastern America and the Russian Church Abroad (1964-1985). St. Petersburg, 2007. p. 52.

[35] Rules. Vol. I. Op. cit. p. 114.

[36] Pillar of Fire. Op. cit. p. 251.

[37] Andreyev, I.M., Prof. Is the Grace of God Present in the Soviet Church? Jordanville, 1948. pp. 17-21.

[38] Rules. Vol. II. Op. cit. p. 367.

Russian source: https://www.sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/071206doklad.htm