The "Russian True Orthodox Church" on the Moscow Patriarchate (2007)

Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia  Chairman of the Episcopal Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC)

On the attitude of the RTOC Towards the Sergianist-Ecumenical Moscow Patriarchate

(Regarding the reception of former clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate)

December 20, 2007

In the early 1990s, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) established the practice of receiving clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate through public repentance, meaning that repentance was offered not only in confession but also from the church ambo, often before their own congregation. The repentant clergyman would come out to the ambo before the service, kneel before the entire congregation, and publicly repent of their participation in the apostasies of the Moscow Patriarchate. Very often, the entire congregation would repent along with their priest. This was truly an act of national repentance and simultaneously a Triumph of Orthodoxy. Such an act of repentance strengthened people in the Truth, made their choice conscious, and affirmed it through concrete action. After this, few doubted the correctness of their choice or desired to return to the Moscow Patriarchate. The practice of receiving those transitioning from the Patriarchate through public repentance arose after Archbishop Lazarus (Zhurbenko) addressed the ROCOR Synod in 1991, proposing the introduction of a rite of reception from the Moscow Patriarchate, as this issue had become relevant in Russia. For those transitioning from the Moscow Patriarchate, the ROCOR Synod, at the suggestion of Vladyka Lazarus, adopted the rite of receiving the renovationists that had existed in the Russian Church in the 1920s.

Unfortunately, this pious practice of receiving clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate was eventually lost. Today, it is applied in a much-reduced form, where the act of public repentance, confession of faith, and renunciation of the apostasies of the Moscow Patriarchate is replaced by a private confession. The church congregation does not participate in the act of repentance, and the clergy themselves, as time has shown, often perceive such an act of repentance formally. It is one thing to fall on one's knees before the congregation and repent of years of complicity in falsehood, and quite another to confess this privately (secretly) before a single bishop, something the congregation, in most cases, never learns about.

For this reason, the practice of public repentance for clergy transitioning from the Moscow Patriarchate and other non-canonical jurisdictions to the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) must be necessarily reinstated, and it should be strictly observed.

Another significant point: a clergyman received from the Moscow Patriarchate must undergo a probationary period of at least one year, up to three years (depending on the situation). During this probationary period, the clergyman must bear an epitimia as a sign of repentance for complicity (even if involuntary) in the apostasies of the Moscow Patriarchate. Additionally, the epitimia is needed as a reminder that repentance must be daily and effective, not a one-time and formal act only at the moment of receiving the clergyman under the omophorion of the RTOC.

Thus, the act of public repentance, an extended probationary period, and the bearing of epitimia must become mandatory conditions for receiving clergy from the Moscow Patriarchate into communion with the RTOC, as it was 16 years ago.

Besides these three mandatory conditions, there is an urgent issue today regarding the need to perform the rite of cheirothesia over clergy transitioning from the Sergianist-ecumenical schism, to complete their ordinations in the True Church.

This was specifically resolved by the Diocesan Assembly of the clergy and monastics of the Odessa-Kharkov Diocese of the RTOC on December 15/28, 2006.

This complex issue requires detailed consideration.

First of all, it is necessary to understand what "Sergianism" is and what the modern Moscow Patriarchate, born from it, represents.

To canonically resolve complex and contentious issues, the Church has always turned to the authority of the Holy Fathers. In this case, the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, who sealed their loyalty to the True Church of Christ and its Divine Founder with their blood, serve as an unquestionable authority for us.

Here are just a few statements by the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia regarding Sergianism:

• Holy New Martyr Archbishop Seraphim (Samoylovich) of Uglich: "Metropolitan Sergius is guilty of the grave sin of leading our faint-hearted and weak brethren into a new renovationism."

• Catacomb Bishop A.: "We refuse to have prayerful and ecclesiastical-canonical communion with the Moscow Patriarchate for the same reasons that we refused such communion with the renovationists in 1922."

• Holy New Martyr Bishop Maxim (Zhizhilenko) of Serpukhov: "Metropolitan Sergius is none other than the continuer of the so-called 'renovationist' movement, only in a more refined and extremely dangerous form."

• Holy New Martyr Bishop Alexius (Buy) of Voronezh: "Through his actions, which are contrary to the spirit of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Sergius has severed himself from unity with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

• Holy New Martyr Bishop Pavel (Kratirov): "Metropolitan Sergius has trampled not on the external aspect, but on the very inner essence of ecclesiastical Orthodoxy. The 'Hosanna' to Christ and to the Antichrist, now being performed in Christian churches, touches the very essence of the Christian faith and represents a clear apostasy—a falling away from the faith, a betrayal of God."

Regarding Sergianism, the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors are unanimous: they characterize it as nothing other than a "new renovationist schism." We, the children of the Russian True Orthodox Church, the canonical heir of the Catacomb Church, must regard Sergianism as a "new renovationist schism."

In the draft of the Acts of the secret assembly of the exiled Solovki bishops, composed by the Holy Hieromartyr Archbishop Seraphim (Samoylovich) of Uglich and dated December 17, 1933, it is stated:

"We declare Metropolitan Sergius, who violated the purity of the Orthodox faith, distorted the dogma of Salvation and the Church, created a schism, and uttered blasphemy against the Church of Christ and Her confessors, as well as in the dispersion of the Church and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, to be deprived of prayerful communion with us and with all the Orthodox bishops of the Russian Church, and we commit him to ecclesiastical trial with a prohibition from priestly service. Bishops who are of one mind with Metropolitan Sergius are accepted by us into prayerful and canonical communion through the rite of reception from the renovationists" (Cited from: Shkarovsky M.V. The Fates of the Josephite Pastors. The Josephite Movement of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Fates of Its Participants. Archival Documents. – St. Petersburg: Satis, 2006. – p. 542).

This document is especially valuable and authoritative for us because it was composed by the New Martyrs themselves, the founders of the Catacomb Church, who testified to their fidelity to the Truth through their own sufferings and martyrdom.

From the statements of the Holy New Martyrs, it is evident that Sergianism is a continuation of the heresy of renovationism in a specific form. Therefore, when addressing the issue of the RTOC's attitude towards Sergianism and the Moscow Patriarchate, special attention should be given to the canonical decisions made by the Russian Church regarding the hierarchy and sacred actions of the renovationists.

On November 23/December 6, 1922, Holy Patriarch Tikhon anathematized renovationism and the "Higher Church Administration" it created, describing it as an institution of the Antichrist, wherein "the sons of disobedience to Divine Truth and the holy canons of the Church" are found.

The distinguished hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), Archbishop Nikon (Rklitsky) of Washington and Florida, in a well-known speech about Holy Patriarch Tikhon, delivered in the Synodal Hall in New York on March 24/April 6, 1975, quoted the text of Patriarch Tikhon's message on the anathematization of the renovationist schism and its self-proclaimed Higher Church Administration, saying:

"We cite this message because the modern Moscow Patriarchate, in its relations with the Soviet government, in its international relations with the God-fighting movement, in its administration by representatives of godless authority, and perhaps in other ways, is following the path of the 'Living Church.'"

As Vladyka Nikon explained, the Moscow Patriarchate is the direct successor of renovationism, which was anathematized by Holy Patriarch Tikhon. It is particularly noteworthy that the anathematization, that is, the excommunication from the Church, was not only directed at the renovationist ideologists and leaders but also at "all those who have any communion with them," meaning the renovationist hierarchy and all who received ordinations from them or joined them, as is evident from the very text of Patriarch Tikhon.

There were also several other, later rulings by Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Church regarding renovationism: the Patriarch's message of July 23/August 5, 1923, on the invalidity of renovationist sacraments, Decree No. 160 of December 7/20, 1923, on the prohibition of the renovationist hierarchy from serving and on the rite of receiving them into the Orthodox Church, among others.

Explaining what "anathema" means in the precise sense of the word, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, St. Theophan the Recluse writes: "The meaning of anathema is that the one subjected to it is cast out from the Church, and, being outside of it, not only loses its grace but also falls under all the consequences of gracelessness, which exist outside of it." The well-known Serbian canonist Bishop Nikodim (Milash), based on the teachings of the Holy Fathers, states that the word "anathema" must always be understood as "the final excommunication from the Church."

Today, after eight decades of tragic Russian history, looking at the current actions of the Moscow Patriarchate, we can confidently say that the characterization of the Sergianist Moscow Patriarchate as a "neo-renovationist heresy and schism," given by most of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, was not merely a harsh apologetic definition. Life itself has shown that the New Martyrs looked deeply into the phenomenon, seeing the spiritual essence of Sergianism as a continuation and development of the renovationist heresy. We dare to suggest that since the Moscow Patriarchate is the offspring of the "neo-renovationist schism," the anathema pronounced by the Patriarch on renovationism, according to the teachings of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, extends to it as well.

It is also important to remember that the anathema of Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the All-Russian Local Church Council of 1917-1918, which was pronounced on the God-fighting Soviet government and all who collaborate with it, still lies upon the Moscow Patriarchate to this day. This authoritative decision of the Supreme Church Authority in the Russian Church has never been challenged by anyone, not even by the Moscow Patriarchate itself, and no attempts have ever been made to lift this anathema. It can only be lifted by an equivalent, legitimate Local Council of the entire fullness of the Russian Church.

Characterizing the spiritual essence of Sergianism, the distinguished hierarch of ROCOR, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), emphasized that it is "not the personal sin of a particular hierarch, but the fundamental sin of the Moscow Patriarchate, established, proclaimed, and bound by an oath before the entire world, so to speak, a 'dogmatized apostasy.'"

Regrettably, the Moscow Patriarchate, as a "neo-renovationist schism" born out of the Sergianism that emerged in 1927, has not only failed to repent or correct its departure from the purity of True Orthodoxy over the years, but has become even more entrenched in this departure. Today, we observe in the Moscow Patriarchate a process of dogmatizing Sergianism (as defined by Bishop Gregory Grabbe) as a "special feat of service" and "sanctity," which is approaching ecclesiological heresy. Having arisen as a schism, Sergianism has steadily followed a path of distorting Orthodox doctrine. As a consequence, not only have pro-renovationist and modernist tendencies developed within the Moscow Patriarchate, but the new "pan-heresy of ecumenism" (as defined by Metropolitan Vitaly) was also conciliar affirmed: in 1961, the Bishops' Council of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to join the heretical ecumenical so-called "World Council of Churches" (WCC), as a result of which Sergianist hierarchs began to publicly pray together with Catholics, Protestants, Monophysites, and even pagans, Judaists, and Muslims. An example of this can be seen in the recent joint prayer at the beginning of October this year, involving Patriarch Alexy II of the Moscow Patriarchate and hierarchs and clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, together with the Catholic Archbishop of Paris, André Vingt-Trois, and hierarchs and clergy of the Catholic Church in the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris.

Ecumenism in the Moscow Patriarchate has not yet been condemned, and it continues to officially remain in the heretical ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC), despite protests from some of its clergy and laity. As mentioned earlier, Sergianism has also not been condemned within the Moscow Patriarchate. On the contrary, it not only persists but is taking on increasingly unhealthy forms. The situation has escalated to the point where there is now serious talk within the Moscow Patriarchate about the canonization of the heresiarch Sergius (Stragorodsky).

As the Orthodox confessor and theologian Professor Ivan Andreev wrote in 1948: "The falling away of any church from the Truth and its transformation into a 'synagogue of Satan' is a gradual process. But that the Soviet church has embarked on a path leading it to this 'synagogue' is beyond any doubt."

"The Soviet church has violated not only the holy canons. It has trampled on the fundamental dogma of Orthodoxy—the DOGMA OF THE CHURCH. After all its 'deeds' and 'words' (and the 'words' of the Church are its 'deeds'), can the words of the holy dogma, 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,' still apply to the Soviet church? Does this not now sound like blasphemy? For in it, there is neither unity, nor holiness, nor catholicity, nor the Apostolic spirit. Not an integral unity, but a sum of conglomerates; not a spiritual organism of the 'body of Christ,' but merely a formal church organization, in which there is not even a hint of holiness (for holiness and fundamental falsehood are incompatible), nor, most importantly, the Apostolic spirit of love and zeal for purity and truth—this is what the current 'Soviet church' represents" (Andreev I.M., Prof. Is the Soviet Church Graced? Jordanville, 1948, p. 7).

"...We, Orthodox Russian people, without prejudging the final judgment over the Soviet church—a judgment that, by the will of the Holy Spirit, will be rendered in due time by a Russian Orthodox Council—must clearly and unequivocally state: we REFUSE any kind of communion with the Soviet church, because we doubt its grace" (Andreev I.M., Prof., cited work, p. 22).

This was written in 1948 by a confessor of the Catacomb Church, who by that time was already a professor and theologian at the Holy Trinity Seminary of ROCOR in Jordanville, Professor I. Andreev.

If Professor I. Andreev was already thinking this way about the Moscow Patriarchate in 1948, what can we say now, when since 1961 the Moscow Patriarchate has been actively participating in the ecumenical movement, and its departures from Orthodoxy have worsened each year? By its conciliar will, the Moscow Patriarchate, having joined the "World Council of Churches," has now defined itself not only as a "neo-renovationist schism" but also as a heretical community.

The ROCOR Bishops' Council in 1983 issued a resolution on the heresy of ecumenism:

"To those who do not distinguish the true priesthood and sacraments of the Church from those of heretics, but teach that the baptism and Eucharist of heretics are sufficient for salvation, and to those who have communion with these heretics or support them, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism, which falsely claims brotherly love and unity of scattered Christians: Anathema!"

Thus, in addition to the anathemas of Holy Patriarch Tikhon against renovationism and collaborators of the God-fighting Soviet regime, since 1983, the Moscow Patriarchate has also fallen under the conciliar anathema against the heresy of ecumenism, to which all who remain within the Moscow Patriarchate are subject, without exception, regardless of their personal stance. For the Church is a single Body, where one member cannot be separated from another, and where all are spiritually responsible for one another. Therefore, even opponents of Sergianism and ecumenism, through their commemoration and liturgical communion with their heretical bishops (headed by the false patriarch), become one with them. This is what the Holy Church teaches through the mouths of the Holy Fathers: "With those who pretend to confess the sound of the Orthodox faith but are in union with those who hold other opinions and do not heed warnings, continuing to persist, you should not only have no communion, but you should not even call them brothers" (St. Basil the Great).

As part of the Russian Local Church along with ROCOR and adhering to a truly Orthodox ecclesiology, the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) follows all the Orthodox conciliar decisions of ROCOR, including the anathematization of the heresy of ecumenism.

Since, from the moment of the proclamation of the anathema against the heresy of ecumenism, the Moscow Patriarchate has neither corrected itself nor renounced its errors, and it still remains a part of the ecumenical so-called "World Council of Churches," the Russian True Orthodox Church now faces with renewed urgency the question of determining the rite for receiving clergy from the Sergianist-ecumenical "neo-renovationist schism" of the Moscow Patriarchate. In the past, as noted above, our Church practiced the reception of such clergy through the rite of repentance and confession of the true Orthodox faith, as was customary in ROCOR.

However, from the history of the Church and the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, we know that in cases of persistent and prolonged unrepentance of various heretical and schismatic communities, and their deep entrenchment in sin, more stringent canonical measures began to be applied to them over the years. Initially, maximum economy (leniency) was shown to them, but later this approach was often revised, and the requirements became stricter, up to the application of exactness (akrivia).

This principle is also applicable to the Moscow Patriarchate at present. If in the 1960s and 1970s, there were still bishops in the Moscow Patriarchate who were of the old succession and had been ordained by legitimate bishops of the Russian Church, from the 1970s onward, they were gradually replaced by a new generation of bishops who were alien to the traditions of the Orthodox Russian Church and, for the most part, were outright appointees and servants of the God-fighting anti-Christian regime and heretics, similar to the current patriarch. It is this "new formation" that now firmly occupies all the leading hierarchical positions in the Moscow Patriarchate. This is a qualitatively different hierarchy, even compared to the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1950s–60s. For the most part, these are not only morally corrupt individuals who obtained their rank through simony or at the behest of godless authorities but also outright heretics or even atheists who do not believe in the Holy Trinity, the validity of the Church's sacraments, and perform Orthodox rites only for the masses. Such a phenomenon is now widespread in the Moscow Patriarchate, and this situation is increasingly deteriorating. Now, the Moscow Patriarchate has also spread its corrupting influence to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

In light of the deep-rooted spiritual and moral corruption in the Moscow Patriarchate, where there is no longer any hope for its correction and repentance, it becomes necessary, in the spirit of the teachings of the Holy Fathers, to apply more stringent canonical requirements to the clergy of this apostate heretical community.

As mentioned earlier, over time, the Ecumenical Councils revised their judgments on heretical and schismatic communities, issuing stricter rulings regarding their reception into the Church.

Let us examine how the Holy Church has approached the resolution of similar issues at different times.

As Saint Cyprian of Carthage testified, in his time there was no doubt about the method of receiving heretics who had once been baptized in the Catholic Church. These were lost sheep returning to the maternal fold, and the pastor received them through the laying on of hands. However, it was much more challenging, even in the early centuries of Christianity, to determine the reception of those who converted to Christianity not in the Catholic Church, but in a heretical or schismatic one, where they had also received baptism. As the baptismal controversies of the time of Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Stephen of Rome show, two practices for receiving heretics existed in the Church from ancient times: through the sacrament of baptism or through the laying on of hands by a bishop, that is, cheirothesia.

Many cases from church history testify that the Holy Church does not have a single, universal conciliar ruling for all times regarding the validity or invalidity of the sacraments of heretics and schismatics. The question of the validity of sacraments performed outside the True Orthodox Church was resolved by the Holy Fathers not according to a general rule, but in each specific case individually. Therefore, in conciliar decrees, we do not find a single, one-size-fits-all solution to the issue of receiving heretics and schismatics into the Church, but only rulings that address very specific cases and particular heresies or schisms. It often happened that conciliar rulings recognized the sacraments of certain heretics while rejecting those of schismatics. The Holy Fathers recognized the sacraments not for all heretics and schismatics, but only for some. And again, over time, this position not only did not become more lenient, but if the falling away from the Church worsened, even stricter canonical measures were often applied to such groups.

For instance, the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325 AD) in its 8th canon specifies how the "Cathari" ("pure ones"), understood by the Council to be the Novatians, should be received into the Catholic Church: "Concerning those who formerly called themselves pure but now join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands, they remain in the clergy. First of all, they must declare in writing that they will adhere to and follow the decrees of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in church communion with those who have married twice and with those who have fallen during the persecution, for whom a time of repentance has been established and a term of forgiveness appointed. They must follow in all respects the decrees of the Catholic Church."

From the text of the canon, it is clear that it speaks about receiving Novatian clergy into the Orthodox Church through cheirothesia (the laying on of hands), rather than all Novatians in general. The Council decrees that they remain in the clergy and that hands must be laid upon them ("after the laying on of hands"), meaning that cheirothesia should be performed. Thus, the Nicene Council prescribed that Novatian clergy be received not simply through repentance, but also through the laying on of hands (cheirothesia).

At the same time, for example, the Quinisext Council (692 AD) required only a declaration from those coming into the Church from the overt heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, affirming that they acknowledge the Orthodox doctrine and renounce the heretical teachings from which they are departing. In this decree, there is no mention of the laying on of hands, as there is in the 8th canon of the Nicene Council.

This is particularly noteworthy because Novatianism was what we now refer to as a schism, whereas Nestorianism and Monophysitism were doctrinally different from Orthodox teaching and were conciliar condemned as heretical teachings. Both Nestorians and Monophysites were among the most dangerous opponents of Orthodoxy in the Roman Empire at that time and fiercely opposed the Church. Despite condemning not only the followers of these heresies but also all who sympathized with them, the ecclesiastical authority nonetheless decreed that these heretics should be received through a simple "written declaration," thereby recognizing the validity of the sacraments performed in their communities.

At the same time, the Nicene Council, in its 19th canon, decreed that the followers of Paul of Samosata, upon their reception into the Catholic Church, were to be re-baptized: "Concerning those who were once Paulianists but have now taken refuge in the Catholic Church, a decree is made that they all must be baptized anew." The Council's directive that the followers of Paul of Samosata should be re-baptized signifies that the Council did not recognize the validity of their baptism as a sacrament. Everything known about the teachings of Paul of Samosata does not suggest that baptism in his communities was performed differently than in the Catholic Church. Saint Athanasius the Great testified that they used the Trinitarian formula during baptism. However, Saint Athanasius rejected the Paulianist baptism on the grounds that they interpreted the baptismal formula in a non-Orthodox manner.

Here is another characteristic example. The 95th canon of the Quinisext Council, following the 7th canon of the Council of Constantinople, mentions another group of heretics whose baptism is recognized as valid, but whose other sacraments are considered invalid. Therefore, these heretics are received into the Catholic Church through chrismation: "Arians, Macedonians, Novatians who call themselves Puritans and the best, the Quartodecimans, or Tetradites, and the Apollinarians, when they submit a written declaration and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same views as the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, we receive, sealing them—that is, anointing them with holy chrism—first the forehead, then the eyes, and the nostrils, and the mouth, and the ears, and sealing them, we say: The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit."

If we consider the principle that greater leniency in admission to the Church is deserved by those groups where the doctrinal teaching of the Church has not been violated, then certainly, the Novatians and Quartodecimans would have had the greatest right to the application of economy. Even Epiphanius testified that the latter remained Orthodox. Nevertheless, both the Novatians and the Quartodecimans were grouped together with the Arians by the Quinisext Council, even though the Nicene Council's earlier canon allowed for the maximum economy toward the Novatians.

These historical examples show that the Councils each time discussed specific cases of reception from specific groups of heretics and schismatics into the Church, and issued new decisions regarding these individual cases, rather than applying a predetermined general principle. Therefore, the decrees of the Councils are explicitly applicable only to the cases they directly address, and not universally to all.

When discussing the reception of heretics and schismatics into the Church, the Councils first thoroughly investigated each specific movement or group, determined (and sometimes reassessed) their stance toward them, and only then issued a decree regarding the method of reception from the respective group of heretics or schismatics. As we can see, they considered not only the doctrines but also the particular circumstances of the Church's life at that moment. The rules of reception were intended not to complicate but rather to facilitate the transition of the lost into the true Church, just as all church canons and statutes are essentially designed to ease our path to salvation, making the journey toward the Heavenly Kingdom more accessible. This is a matter of God's economy. Therefore, it is impossible to have a single rule of reception that applies to all situations. For some schismatics or heretics, deep repentance during their transition to the true Church may require a lengthy penance, chrismation, cheirothesia, or even, perhaps, a second—true—baptism. For others, repentance alone may be sufficient. Thus, besides adherence to the dogmas of the Church and the correctness of the sacraments, it is important to consider the specific historical situation and the depth of repentance in those transitioning from heresy. The particularities of the historical situation may include the extent of the heresy’s spread, its corrupting influence on people, its entrenchment in a given community, and so on. This explains why the Councils, in some cases, showed maximum leniency in receiving heretics whose teachings significantly differed from those of the Catholic Church, while in other cases, they were extremely strict with schismatics whose teachings differed little from those of the Orthodox Church. This also likely explains why the decisions regarding the reception of the same heretics or schismatics could change from one Council to another, despite the respect given to previous conciliar decisions.

Thus, the Nicene Council (325 AD), as we have seen, prescribed receiving the Novatians through the laying on of hands by a bishop (cheirothesia), but the Quinisext Council (692 AD) later decreed that they should be received through the sacrament of chrismation. Novatianism, as a schism in relation to the Church, remained the same both in the early 4th century and in the 7th century. However, over the years, Novatianism not only did not draw closer to the Church but grew even further apart from it. Therefore, by the 7th century, the rule for receiving the Novatians was made stricter.

We have provided an overview of the methods of reception from heresies and schisms during the times of the Ecumenical Councils. The heresies and schisms of later periods deserve special consideration.

As is well known, the Church authorities have experienced and continue to experience difficulties in determining the method of reception into the Orthodox Church for heretics and schismatics who appeared after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, for more than 1,000 years. These difficulties further testify to the absence of a universal solution for all times, contrary to the assertions of scholastic theology. The most illustrative example in this regard is the issue of receiving Catholics into the Orthodox Church. There are no pan-Orthodox decrees on this matter. Each Local Church has resolved and continues to resolve this issue independently, based on local traditions, practices, and historical circumstances. Moreover, not only do the decisions of different Local Churches vary, but even the decisions within the same Local Church have undergone significant changes over time.

In the 11th century, the question of receiving Catholics likely did not arise often, and if it did, it did not present difficulties, as memories of former church unity were still fresh. In the 12th century, the situation began to change. As the responses of Balsamon to Mark of Alexandria show, there was a question within church circles regarding the conditions under which Catholics could participate in the Eucharist. Balsamon believed that it was sufficient for Catholics to renounce teachings that were not in line with the Orthodox Church for them to be received into communion. Alongside this, there was another opinion that required their reception into the Orthodox Church through chrismation. In 1484, under Patriarch Symeon, the Council of Constantinople decreed that Catholics should be received into the Orthodox Church without re-baptism, through chrismation and renunciation of their errors.

In the 18th century, this practice changed. The decree of the Constantinople Council under Patriarch Cyril (1756) required the re-baptism of Latins (those baptized by pouring), as well as all heretics in general.

In the Russian Church, the procedure for receiving those from heterodox confessions also underwent several changes. The Moscow Council of 1620 decreed that Latins and Uniates should be received through re-baptism, but just a few decades later, the Moscow Council of 1657 decreed that Latins should be received without re-baptism, while it declared the baptism of Calvinists and Lutherans invalid. Finally, the Great Moscow Council of 1667, based on the decree of the Constantinople Council of 1484, confirmed the practice of receiving Catholics without re-baptism. The decree of the Constantinople Council of 1756 did not affect the decision of the Great Moscow Council, resulting in different practices emerging in the Greek and Russian Churches for receiving those from heterodox confessions. While the Greek Church received Catholics and all persons previously belonging to heterodox confessions through the sacrament of baptism, the Russian Church received them without re-baptism, performing the sacrament of chrismation over the converts.

Both the Greek and Russian Churches cited the 95th canon of the Quinisext Council to justify their practices, as it indeed specifies the methods of reception into the Catholic Church through baptism, chrismation, and repentance. However, this canon does not indicate which of these methods should be applied to those coming from Catholicism or other traditions. The canon is only applicable to the specific heretics mentioned within it, as it does not provide a general principle for the reception of heretics into the Church.

Thus, differences in the traditions and practices of the Greek and Russian Churches have persisted to this day, without hindering canonical communion between them. For example, while the Greek Church has rebaptized those coming from Catholicism for several centuries, the Russian Church received Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and her sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, from Lutheranism through repentance alone, without even chrismation. This fact in no way diminishes the sanctity of these Holy Martyrs, who suffered for their Orthodox faith. The triumph of their glorification among the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia took place at the ROCOR Bishops' Council under the chairmanship of His Beatitude Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) in 1981. This once again confirms the possibility of coexistence within Orthodoxy of various local practices and traditions, which may not necessarily align across different Local Churches that remain in Eucharistic and canonical unity with one another. However, it is known that in recent times, some Greek zealots, falling into extremism, have refused to recognize the sanctity of Holy Royal Martyr Alexandra and her sister, Holy Martyr Elizabeth, citing the fact that neither rebaptism nor chrismation was performed over them. Let us leave the judgment of this to their conscience.

On the matter under discussion, there can be various individual opinions, as was also the case among the Holy Fathers. However, the final word always belongs to the conciliar mind of the Church.

Even Saint Basil the Great, while sharing the views of Saint Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea regarding the invalidity of the sacrament of baptism performed by schismatics and providing theological justification for this opinion, nonetheless agrees with the conciliar decision of the majority of the Fathers: "Since some in Asia have decisively chosen, for the edification of many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted" (1st Canon of Basil the Great).

Similarly, in our private judgments, we may recognize or not recognize the validity of the sacraments of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP); however, we must remember that we cannot issue a final verdict on such a complex and weighty issue—a response to which can only be given by a legitimate Local Council.

Since the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) is not the fullness of the Local Russian Church, but only a part of the once united Russian Church, the Episcopal Synod of the RTOC cannot issue a final judgment on the presence or absence of grace in the sacraments of the MP. Continuing the traditions and ecclesiology of ROCOR, we acknowledge the validity of the decision of the ROCOR Bishops' Council under the chairmanship of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) from September 12/25, 1974, which established: "Regarding the question of the presence or absence of grace among the new calendarists [ecumenists—author], ROCOR does not consider itself or any other Local Church authorized to make a definitive decision, as a categorical assessment on this issue can only be made by a properly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the mandatory participation of the free [Catacomb—author] Church of Russia."

In the context of this decision by the ROCOR Bishops' Council, the explanations of one of the founding fathers of the Catacomb Church in Russia, the Holy Martyr Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov, +1937) of Kazan, the legitimate head of the Russian Church according to the testament of St. Patriarch Tikhon, are partially applicable. Holy Martyr Kirill wrote: "The sacraments performed by the Sergianists, who were properly ordained as clergy, are undoubtedly saving sacraments for those who receive them with faith, in simplicity, without questioning or doubting their efficacy, and without suspecting anything amiss in the Sergianist arrangement of the Church." However, at the same time, Saint Kirill noted that "they serve as judgment and condemnation for the performers themselves and for those among the recipients who fully understand the existing falsehood in Sergianism and reveal a criminal indifference to the desecration of the Church by their lack of resistance to it. This is why an Orthodox bishop or priest must refrain from prayerful communion with the Sergianists. The same is necessary for laypeople who are consciously aware of all the details of church life" (L. Regelson, The Tragedy of the Russian Church, Paris, 1977, p. 495; reprinted in Moscow in 1995).

This was said by Holy Martyr Kirill in the early 1930s. However, several sources indicate that by the end of his life, Saint Kirill, witnessing the unrepentance of Metropolitan Sergius and his followers, took a stricter stance towards Sergianism, effectively aligning with the view of Holy Martyr Joseph (Petrovykh), Metropolitan of Petrograd, who considered the Sergianist church to be devoid of grace.

More than 70 years have passed since then. At that time, Saint Kirill could still confidently speak of the presence of "legitimate priesthood" among the Sergianists, as it consisted of the old hierarchy and clergy of lawful ordination. However, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, after hierarchs and clergy enter into schism, the gifts of the Holy Spirit within such a church diminish over time. As Saint Basil the Great writes: "Although the beginning of the falling away came through schism, those who separated from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit within them. For the transmission of grace ceased because lawful succession was interrupted. The first to separate still received ordination from the Fathers and through the laying on of hands had the spiritual gift. But those who were cut off, having become laymen, had no power to ordain and could not transmit the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, from which they themselves had fallen away."

Since the emergence of the Sergianist "neo-renovationist schism," 80 years have passed. During this time, several generations of Sergianist hierarchy have come and gone. It has been 16 years since the fall of the God-fighting communist regime that gave birth to Sergianism. However, despite the political and religious freedom, and the absence of repression and persecution, the Sergianist hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) has not only failed to repent, reform, and return to true Patristic Orthodoxy, but has increasingly entrenched itself in its apostasies and vices, often losing even the outward signs of Orthodoxy. Over the years, the Patriarchate has become something different, and therefore, the attitude toward it should also be different from what it was in the 1930s–1940s. Back then, they were misguided or frightened people; now, they are convinced apostates. If the MP of that time could be spoken of as a "church of the harlot," now it can be confidently said that this harlot has degenerated into a "church of deceit." Consequently, the reception of clergy from this structure must be fundamentally different.

The last Optina Elder, Saint Nektary (Tikhonov), warned as early as the late 1920s that "Sergianism is worse than renovationism; the renovationists repented, but these [Sergianists] will not repent."

In the early 1990s, the maximum leniency (economia) shown by ROCOR towards the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) was understandable, as there were still hopes for the MP's correction and repentance. However, as time has shown, these hopes—and the corresponding economy—were not only unfulfilled but also became one of the reasons for the disintegration and absorption of ROCOR by Sergianism. Moreover, almost none of those who formally repented and transitioned from the MP in the early 1990s, with few exceptions, have remained in the True Church today. In 1991–1993 alone, more than 100 clergy from the MP were received in Russia through repentance by the bishops of RTOC-ROCOR. However, where are they today? The majority of them have returned to the MP.

Church practice demonstrates that since the ordinations of MP clergy were not completed by the laying on of hands by Orthodox bishops, on a canonical and ecclesiastical-mystical level, these clergy continue to feel a pull towards the MP as their "mother church," where they received the sacraments of baptism and ordination. This situation arises because the Church is not a socio-political institution or an administrative structure, but primarily the Mystical Body, where all members are spiritually and mystically interconnected through the Sacraments. Every priest is obligated during the Proskomedia to remove a particle and commemorate the bishop who ordained him. Thus, even when former MP clergy join ROCOR or RTOC while retaining their clerical rank, they effectively continue to maintain a mystical connection with their former bishops from the MP, while lacking such a connection with the bishops of ROCOR or RTOC, and therefore do not develop a spiritual-mystical attachment to the True Church. If a cheirothesia (laying on of hands) had been performed, the former MP clergy would commemorate during the Proskomedia the bishop of ROCOR or RTOC who laid hands on him, marking a definitive break with the MP and a true reunification with the True Church. But since no cheirothesia was performed, the former MP clergy, despite formally joining ROCOR or RTOC, did not become spiritually and mystically established in the True Church, leaving the way back to the MP open for them.

For this same reason, clergy transitioning from the MP often seem to lack the spirit and heritage of the Catacomb Church. While they may formally accept the spirit and heritage of the Catacomb Church, in practice, they often remain indifferent to it, not embracing it with their hearts. This makes it easy for them to renounce their beliefs, preferences, and even jurisdictions. Their coldness towards the True Church leads to a lamentable outcome: their hearts are not filled with feelings of love, devotion, humility, and reverence but instead are occupied with condemning the structure they left. Such individuals cease to seek the gifts of love and the path of fulfilling the commandments, becoming preoccupied with searching for a perfectly pure church structure. Their hearts become filled first with condemnation and then with dissatisfaction. As a result, even the RTOC no longer satisfies such a clergyman, and they are irresistibly drawn to join another structure that at the moment seems to them more pure and canonical. These wanderings can become endless, and the person who falls into this trap is truly unfortunate. The root cause of these wanderings likely lies in the lack of a mystical connection between the clergy and the True Church, in their insufficient depth of repentance when transitioning from the MP, which may have been exacerbated by inadequate attention to the rite of reception for clergy from the MP. It is worth repeating that the rite of reception holds a primarily mystical significance and is intended to facilitate the transition of the repentant into the True Church. Because more stringent conditions were not imposed on their reception into the RTOC-ROCOR, the experience of joining the True Church was not deep enough, making it easy for them to renounce it. Such behavior of the soul is fundamental to Orthodox asceticism.

We do not claim that the flawed practice of receiving clergy from the MP is the sole cause of the betrayals and apostasies that have occurred, but it is one significant aspect that we can no longer afford to ignore.

By not recognizing the legitimacy of the MP as the True Orthodox Church, we also cannot fully recognize the absolute legitimacy of MP ordinations. However, as the Holy Canons and the Holy Fathers teach, through economia, even illegitimate actions can, when united with the True Church, receive the power of the sacraments through the grace of the Holy Spirit without requiring them to be performed anew.

From the history of the Church, we know that economia can be applied based on the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, the 66th canon of the Council of Carthage, and others. These canons speak of the possibility of receiving schismatic and heretical clergy through an additional cheirothesia (laying on of hands), rather than through a new ordination.

The word "cheirothesia" literally translates from Greek as "laying on of hands," while "cheirotonia" means "ordination" or "election." Therefore, when we perform cheirothesia on someone who has transitioned from the MP, we acknowledge their election but supplement their ordination. Thus, by recognizing the election (cheirotonia) during the reception of the Cathars and Novatians, based on the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council and the 66th canon of the Council of Carthage, Orthodox bishops performed an additional laying on of hands (cheirothesia) over the repentant clergy as an act of repentance and to complete the ordinations received in schism.

The learned Patriarch Saint Tarasius distinguished cheirothesia from cheirotonia, considering the former a church blessing. When he was asked at the Seventh Ecumenical Council how he understood someone on whom the bishop’s hand had been laid—meaning, someone who had undergone cheirothesia—he replied, "Cheirothesia is received as a sign of blessing, that is, the laying on of a hand or the touch of it. And the laying on of hands can in no way be considered cheirotonia."

In modern history, the rite of supplementary cheirothesia was first proposed in Greece in relation to the clergy of ecumenical churches at the 1935 Council. At that time, the founding fathers of the then-unified Greek Old Calendarist True Orthodox Church established the practice of receiving New Calendarist clergy through a confession of Orthodox faith and supplementary cheirothesia (involving the laying on of hands and the recitation of the ordination prayer anew).

In the recent history of the Russian Church, there is an important precedent for us in which the practice of cheirothesia was applied. In 1971, a group of Old Calendarist Greek hierarchs approached the Synod of ROCOR with a request to complete their ordinations, which had been performed by a single bishop, Bishop Matthew, during a difficult time for the Greek Church. The ROCOR Bishops' Council, under the chairmanship of Saint Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985), made the decision on September 15/28, 1971, to complete the episcopal ordinations of the Greek hierarchy through the performance of additional cheirothesias.

Here is how it is stated in the Protocol of the ROCOR Bishops' Council No. 16-11 dated September 15/28, 1971:

"Any ordination performed without observing the canons is essentially already invalid, even if it was carried out by canonically ordained bishops. The Fourth Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, for example, did not depose Maximus the Cynic for his offenses but declared his ordination invalid. This was despite the fact that it was performed by canonical bishops, but in violation of the canons. The same applies to the ordination of priests...

However, through economia, illegitimate actions can receive the power of the sacraments without being performed again. Saint Basil the Great writes in his First Canon about the Cathari, who are deprived of the gifts of the Holy Spirit because they are schismatics. Yet, through economia, he allows them to be received into communion without a new baptism. And the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council says the following about them: 'Concerning those who formerly called themselves Pure but now join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, it is pleasing to the holy and great Council that, after the laying on of hands (i.e., supplementary cheirothesia), they remain in the clergy.'"

There are different opinions regarding the understanding of the phrase "laying on of hands." Aristen interprets it as meaning chrismation, a view shared by Bishop John of Smolensk. However, it seems that a more authoritative explanation was provided by Saint Patriarch Tarasius at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. When someone asked him how to understand the words about the laying on of hands in the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, he explained that it was not ordination, but something else, merely signifying a blessing. Bishop Nikodim Milash agrees with this authoritative interpretation of Saint Tarasius, stating: "...These words of the Nicene canon mean that when Novatian clergy were received from schism into the Orthodox Church, a rightful bishop or priest had to lay hands on them, similar to what is done in the sacrament of confession, and recite the appropriate prayer that reunites them with the Church. The same order of reception into the Church was applied to the Donatists, who were much more stubborn schismatics than the Novatians (Council of Carthage, canon 79). ...Due to the well-known great need in Africa, for the sake of peace and the benefit of the Church, even from among the Donatist clergy, those who corrected their disposition and wished to come into Catholic union were received into their ranks of priesthood by the judgment and decision of each Catholic bishop governing the Church in that place, if this was deemed conducive to Christian peace..."

Noting the non-canonical origin of the "Matthewite" hierarchy, the ROCOR Bishops' Council decreed:

"However, it is evident from the examples provided that there is sufficient basis to apply economia to them, in accordance with the 8th Canon of the First Ecumenical Council and the 79th Canon of the Council of Carthage.

Taking into account all of the above, as well as the desire to achieve unity among all those devoted to True Orthodoxy, the Bishops' Council makes the following decisions:

It is deemed possible to satisfy the request of Metropolitans Callistus and Epiphanius. For this purpose, two bishops should perform the laying on of hands upon them. The same should be done by these Metropolitans for their brothers, and all their bishops should perform the laying on of hands upon their priests."

(From the Decision of the ROCOR Bishops' Council. Protocol No. 16-11 dated September 15/28, 1971).

In September 1971, the journal The Orthodox Christian Witness published a detailed account of the cheirothesias performed by ROCOR bishops over Greek hierarchs at the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brooklyn:

"Archbishop Philotheos of Hamburg from Germany and Bishop Constantine of Brisbane from Australia (both of ROCOR) concelebrated with the monastery clergy on September 17, 1971, and immediately after the Trisagion during the Divine Liturgy (i.e., precisely at the moment when the ordination of a bishop usually takes place), the Matthewite Bishop Callistus of Corinth, who was only partially vested, was presented before the two aforementioned hierarchs. The prayers that were read over him were the two secret prayers usually recited during the ordination of a bishop. These prayers (or, in the case of the cheirothesia of a priest, their equivalents from the ordination of a presbyter) are typically read during cheirothesia. After these prayers were read, Bishop Callistus was given the remaining parts of his vestments: the omophorion, the panagia, the mitre, and the bishop's staff, to signify that the prayers read over him had completed what was lacking in his previous, non-canonical 'ordination,' and that he had now lawfully received these symbols of his ministry. At this moment, everyone in the church exclaimed 'Axios.'"

The following day, on September 18, 1971, Archbishop Philotheos and Bishop Constantine, along with Bishop Callistus, performed the exact same ceremony for the Matthewite Bishop Epiphanius of Kition from Cyprus.

At the end of the Divine Liturgy on September 18, the Matthewite protosyncellus, Protopresbyter Eugene Tombros, gave a brief address, thanking the ROCOR hierarchs who, in his words, "carried out a sacred act of love"...

The performers and witnesses of these two cheirothesias (layings-on of hands) then signed the following document:

ACT

In fulfillment of the conciliar decree of September 16/28, 1971, we, on September 17/30, 1971, at the Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Mass., read prayers with the laying on of hands over His Grace Callistus, Metropolitan of Corinth, and on September 18/October 1 of the same year, over His Grace Epiphanius, Metropolitan of Kition. After this, we concelebrated the Divine Liturgy with them.

Brookline, Mass., September 18, 1971

Signatures: Archbishop Philotheos, Bishop Constantine

Witnesses: Archimandrite Calliopius, Archimandrite Panteleimon, Hieromonk Charalambos

It is absolutely clear that if even the "Matthewite" Old Calendarist hierarchy required the completion of episcopal ordinations through the performance of additional cheirothesias, then it is all the more necessary for the bishops and clergy of the Sergianist-ecumenical Moscow Patriarchate, which the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia regarded as a "neo-renovationist schism," applying to it the same canonical requirements as to the "renovationists."

Therefore, to preserve the purity of True Orthodoxy, it is essential to receive clergy from the MP into communion through public repentance, a probationary period of one to three years with the carrying out of penance (epitimia), a Confession of Faith, and a renunciation of the false errors of the MP (the Act of Confession of Faith and Renunciation of False Doctrines for clergy coming from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Russian True Orthodox Church was developed and approved by the RTOC Bishops' Council on August 6/19, 2002). In addition, it seems both useful and necessary to introduce into the practice of the Russian True Orthodox Church the performance of cheirothesia to complete the ordination. This approach would be correct and in accordance with the canons and the legacy of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of the Catacomb Church.

As before, the final word on this complex issue 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 a Council has the authority to definitively and authoritatively resolve this matter. Until the Council's decision, we are all free to express our personal judgments on this issue, discuss it, and exchange opinions. However, let us reiterate, the fullness of the decision belongs solely to the Council.

In conclusion, let us once again turn to the words of the prominent Orthodox confessor and theologian, Professor I. Andreev:

"...We, Orthodox Russian people, without preempting the final judgment over the Soviet church—a judgment that, by the 'will' of the Holy Spirit, will be rendered in due time by a Russian Orthodox Council—must clearly and unequivocally state: we REFUSE any kind of communion with the Soviet church, because we doubt its grace" (Andreev I.M., Prof., cited work, p. 22).

+Archbishop Tikhon of Omsk and Siberia,

Chairman of the Episcopal Synod of RTOC

Russian source: https://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=1461