What the Moscow Patriarchate REALLY thought about ROCOR (1998): Schismatic and Heretical

The Church Abroad: Schism or Heresy?

 by [MP Martyr?] Priest Daniel Sysoev

[written c. 1998]

This organization, unlawfully arising back in the 1920s and finally formalized as a schism in 1990, unfortunately, has a significant influence on the minds and hearts of many Orthodox Christians. They believe that only they have preserved true piety and the fullness of Orthodoxy, allegedly lost by the Moscow Patriarchate. But let's examine the origins of this confession that claims to be the only True Church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (may His Name be eternally blessed).

1. The establishment of the Karlovci Synod

After the defeat of the White Armies, which failed to overthrow the communist regime they had fought against, some bishops fled along with the retreating forces, leaving their flocks behind. In the parts of southern Russia free from Bolshevik control, they formed a temporary autocephalous body (which was still considered canonical, in accordance with the decision of St. Tikhon on November 20, 1920). However, once they moved beyond their canonical territory and effectively lacked dioceses, they did not want to join the local clergy of the churches they found themselves in, as stipulated by the holy canons. On the contrary, in 1921, they chose to convene a "council" in Sremski Karlovci to normalize church life outside Russia. Even during the lifetime of His Holiness Tikhon, the spirit of resistance began to manifest itself, which later led this organization's followers outside the Universal Church. During the "council," Metropolitan Antony [Khrapovitsky] decided to abide only by those decisions which he considered to be issued freely by the Patriarch, without Bolshevik pressure. The criterion for freedom became the agreement of these decisions with his own opinions. (Later, for example, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov considered the decision of the deputy locum tenens to condemn Sophianism to be compelled and made under pressure). This approach fundamentally undermined the very possibility of Church governance and rendered the institution of the patriarchate useless, even though Metropolitan Antony himself was a proponent of its restoration at one point. It should be noted that behind the bishops who became the cause of this schism, just as with the formation of the catacomb schism, stood a circle of their immediate organizers who were striving to restore the monarchy in Russia by any means. They were members of the Supreme Monarchist Council. It was believed that only a representative of the Romanov dynasty could become the Tsar. None other than Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, the betrayer of the Sovereign, who was recognized as the legitimate Emperor in exile by the Karlovci Council in 1924. Interestingly, it is his descendants that the international community is now pushing so vigorously for the Russian throne. So why don't we see the obvious: that those who claim to fight against Freemasonry are deeply connected with it themselves?

At the Karlovci Council, a decision was made on behalf of the Russian Church to restore the monarchy and to call for the blockade of Bolshevik Russia at the Genoa Conference. As a result, the persecutions within the Mother Church intensified drastically, and all those arrested were primarily questioned about their attitude towards the decisions of the Karlovci Council. St. Tikhon, who ended up in prison due to these decisions, did not recognize the resolutions of this council and ordered (at a joint meeting of the Synod and the Supreme Church Administration on May 5, 1922) to dissolve this unlawful assembly and transfer all authority over the Western European parishes to Metr. Evlogy. However, the Karlovci members, formally complying with this directive, immediately created the "Synod of the Russian Church Abroad," allegedly based on a synodal resolution dated November 7, 1920. The Holy Patriarch did not approve of this hypocritical action and threatened the disobedient with a church trial, but they considered this resolution to be "unfree" and ignored it. The decision to transfer the management of parishes abroad to Metr. Evlogy, issued by His Holiness, was also rejected. St. Tikhon did not limit himself to a single warning but forewarned the schismatics of the church court that awaited them for their crimes. Thus, in his message of July 1, 1923, the Patriarch wrote, "In the month of April, at a joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council, we condemned the Church Abroad Council in Karlovci for attempting to restore the monarchy from the Romanov dynasty. We could have limited our condemnation to the hierarchs who participated in the council chaired by Metr. Antony, if they had repented and ceased their activities in this direction. However, we were informed that they not only did not cease their activities but further involved the Church in political struggle, aligning themselves with open enemies of the Russian people both inside and outside Russia, with members of various monarchist and White Guard organizations. Let them, although now humbled and repentant before the Russian people for their committed crime; otherwise, it will be necessary to summon the Venerable hierarchs to Moscow to answer before the Church Court and request the Soviet authorities to allow them to come there."

After organizing a new Synod under the Patriarch, on April 8, 1924, the following resolution was adopted regarding this matter: 

"The Supreme Church Administration deems it necessary to:

To declare that both His Holiness the Patriarch and the existing Church Administration under him have nothing to do with all the political activities of the hierarchs abroad aimed at discrediting our state authority, and they condemn such activities...

To request Metropolitan Evlogy, appointed to oversee the churches overseas after the closure of the Church Abroad administration in April 1922, to manage the overseas parishes, which also currently exist as the Church Abroad Administration under the name of the Episcopal Synod.

To state that Metropolitan Anthony, who is abroad, has no right to speak on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church and the entire Russian people, as he lacks the authority for it." 

- Signed: Holy Patriarch Tikhon, Archbishop Tikhon, Archbishop Seraphim, Holy Archbishop Peter (future locum tenens), Holy Archbishop Illarion.

The same matter was addressed by Archbishop Tikhon in his famous "Testament," which, of course, the Karlovci group considered a forgery.

However, besides the uncanonical decision to create an all-Russian Church Abroad organization (which completely contradicts the territorial principle of organizing the Local Church), the Karlovci Synod, during the imprisonment of Holy Patriarch Tikhon, resolved: "To entrust to His Eminence Metropolitan Antony, as the chairman of the Hierarchical Synod, together with the rights of the temporary locum tenens of the Patriarch until the convening of an All-Russian Council, the right to represent the Orthodox Church throughout Russia and, to the extent permitted by circumstances, to oversee Church life and the Church not only outside Russia but also within Russia." Perhaps, this decision was partly carried out by the fact that the abroad authorities took under their omophorion the domestic schismatics - the Catacomb Church followers. It was as if the idea, realized in 1990, was already being laid in the minds of the leaders of the schism!

Under the successors of Patriarch Tikhon, the schismatics not only did not calm down but, on the contrary, intensified their activities. In December 1925, the Synod in Karlovy Vary recognized the legitimate autocephaly of the Polish Church, which Patriarch Tikhon had rejected. The Synod hesitated to recognize the full authority of Metropolitan Peter, fearing fair retribution from him for their schismatic activities. In 1926, the Karlovci Synod fell out with Metropolitan Evlogy and imposed an excommunication on him, which, however, was not recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs.

Regarding the issue of relations with Metropolitan Evlogy, Metropolitan Antony sought advice from the Mother Church. Metropolitan Peter was then in captivity, and Metropolitan Sergius acted on his behalf, advising the Karlovci Synod to follow the sacred canons and, if the will of God did not indicate the creation of a pan-emigrant church organization, to submit to the canons of the Church and come under the subordination of the Local Churches in whose territories they were located. For those living outside their canonical borders, they should establish independent Churches that would include Orthodox of all nationalities. Unfortunately, the Karlovci Synod disregarded this advice as well and continued its unlawful activities.

2. Schism of 1929

Finally, a formal pretext was found for this unlawful entity to break away from the Mother Church. This pretext was the publication of the famous "Declaration" and the associated Decree No. 93, which demanded that all clergy abroad send a signed statement of loyalty to the Soviet government; otherwise, the disobedient ones were considered dismissed. Thus, all anti-Soviet statements made by the Karlovci Synod ceased to be regarded as the voice of the Russian Church and did not expose it to the persecutors. The demand itself was not something unusual in itself. According to the 81st canon of the Holy Apostles, the clergy had no right to meddle in the affairs of civil government, so there was nothing outrageous about their obligation not to turn the church pulpit into a political platform. This requirement did not apply to laymen, who could continue to preach the ideas of monarchy. However, Metropolitan Antony and his Synod equated monarchy with Orthodoxy and declared that Metropolitan Sergius, together with Metropolitan Evlogy, had fallen from ecclesiastical communion. In response, deputy locum tenens Metropolitan Sergius and the Temporary Patriarchal Synod once again disbanded the Karlovci Synod (May 9, 1928, Decree No. 104). After five years, seeing that the Karlovci Synod continued its unlawful activities and supported our domestic schismatics, on June 9, 1934 (Decree No. 50), the Temporary Patriarchal Synod banned eight leaders of the schism from serving with the transfer of their case to the Local Council, headed by Metropolitan Antony, and warned of the canonical responsibility of all their followers for violating the peace of the Church. It should be noted that most Local Churches did not recognize the authority of the self-proclaimed Synod at that time. Although Serbian Patriarch Varnava acted as a mediator in negotiations between the Karlovci Synod and Metropolitan Sergius. Of course, the Karlovci Synod did not recognize the imposed restrictions, which were officially proclaimed on September 10, 1934, at the Hierarchical Council in Karlovci. From this moment, the emigrants were effectively in schism, which became definitive after 1990.

The abnormal canonical position of the Church Abroad led to the emergence of heresy within its ranks, as the words of St. Basil the Great are true, that involvement in schism inevitably leads to the distortion of doctrine. In the case of the Karlovci Synod, this happened very soon after the rupture of normal relations with the Mother Church. The founder of the new false teaching, known as "stavroclasm,” was Metropolitan Antony, the founder of the Church Abroad. In his writings, he rejected the sacrificial nature of Christ's death, claiming that redemption occurred not on the Cross but in Gethsemane. He denied the doctrine of original sin, asserting that human mortality is a result of God's will.

Bishop Antony had been developing his unorthodox ideas for some time, but it was only after he established his own church that he had the opportunity to declare them as dogma. It should be noted that these doctrines were not entirely Bishop Antony's own invention. Rather, he formulated a set of ideas that were already circulating in the air, partly originating from the works of Fyodor Dostoevsky and some Slavophiles, and partly connected to the deliberate moralizing of the intelligentsia in the 1890s.

In the precise words of Father George Florovsky, "It is still the same ideal of 'social service,' transferred into the Church, the ideal of active altruism... Psychologically, Antony is much closer to Slavophile journalism than even to the Russian 'Philokalia.' And despite his rejection of 'Western erudition,' Antony remains too connected with it. To renounce Western books does not yet mean to be free from the Western spirit... Despite the authenticity of this experience, there is an unconquered taste of psychologism or pietism in it. And it lacks objectivity, it lacks a metaphysical perspective. In this regard, Bishop Antony decidedly deviates from the Patristic tradition and measure. He reasons simply in a different plane."

It is not surprising, therefore, that Bishop Antony's ideas found support among monarchists who were raised on Slavophiles and viewed the holy Fathers through their prism, rather than the other way around. (By the way, in our opinion, the Slavophiles themselves can hardly be blamed for this, as they sought to embrace Orthodox teaching and did not claim to correct it, unlike their imprudent followers.)

The aforementioned doctrines were presented in “Towards an Orthodox Christian Catechism," which Bishop Antony submitted for consideration to the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA). On March 27 / April 9, 1925, the Synod approved "Towards a Catechism" as a textbook for Russian educational institutions, intended to replace the Philaret Catechism, which had been approved by the Holy Synod. After Archbishop Theophan of Potava and Bishop Seraphim (Sobolev) expressed their disagreement with this decision, the Synod reevaluated the doctrinal document on April 9 / April 22, 1926. Finding the arguments of its opponents inadequate, the Synod upheld its decision. Thus, de jure, starting from that day, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad found itself in a state of heresy.

It should be noted that this decision could not take effect immediately and it was only after Metropolitan Vitaly assumed the leadership of the Karlovci Synod that this error began to reemerge (although attempts to establish it as dogma had already been made during the tenure of Metropolitan Philaret in 1976). In 1989, this catechism was republished by the Australian-New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and it is now used for the education of students at the Jordanville Seminary. Consequently, the catechism of Bishop Antony is not only de jure but also de facto the symbolic book of the Church Abroad, and thus this organization bears full canonical responsibility for the teachings it promotes.

3. Heresy

Let us examine in more detail the false teachings contained in the belief of the Karlovcians. Regarding the question of original sin, they teach that "Our birth from sinful ancestors is not the sole reason for our sinful state: God knew that each of us would sin just like Adam, and therefore we are his descendants... Knowing beforehand that every person would have Adam's free will, the Lord allows us to inherit Adam's weak nature, prone to sickness, mortality, and sinful tendencies, in the struggle against which, and even more by succumbing to them, we recognize our insignificance and humble ourselves." - This doctrine combines elements of Manichaeism, attributing the generation of evil and sin to God, and Pelagianism, rejecting the concept of original sin. The Holy Fathers (for example, St. Athanasius of Alexandria in his work "Against Apollinarius") asserted that it was not God who burdened human nature with sinful passions and thoughts but Satan. Thus, Metropolitan Antony attributes to the Lord the deeds of the devil, whom He came to destroy. By the way, it turns out that God determines human nature, which supposedly cannot help but sin, and thereby Metropolitan Antony places the responsibility for sin on the Creator.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Karlovcians have a non-Orthodox understanding of the necessity of baptizing infants: "V. If baptism is a sacrament of purification, then why is it needed for infants who have not yet sinned? A. Infants, as shown, are endowed with fallen nature, being born into the world as descendants of the fallen Adam according to God's foreknowledge." - Thus, the baptism of infants is performed not for the remission of sins. Those who hold such a belief are anathematized in accordance with the 124th canon of the Council of Carthage. They are also subjected to the anathemas of the Third Ecumenical Council against the Pelagians.

But especially distorted is the teaching about redemption among the Karlovcians. In their doctrine, they emphasize not the salvific sufferings of the Lord on the cross but the prayer in Gethsemane, which they interpret in contradiction to the teachings of the Fathers and the 6th Ecumenical Council. Their creed directly rejects the revealed understanding of these latter. - "V. What was the Lord praying for in the Garden of Gethsemane, saying: 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me' (Matthew 26:39)? A. One should not think that the Lord was horrified by the upcoming crucifixion and prayed to be delivered from it, for even the martyrs went to their sufferings not with fear but with joy, and this joy did not leave them amid the terrible tortures inflicted on their bodies by their tormentors. V. By what words of Holy Scripture can we be convinced of this? A. The Apostle Paul writes about Christ: 'Who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and was heard in that He feared.' (Hebrews 5:7) If the Savior prayed to be spared from the sufferings of the cross, then He was not heard. V. What was He praying for so fervently that drops of sweat fell from His face like drops of blood? V. What was He so deeply distressed about when He said to the disciples, 'My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death'? (Mark 14:34) A. The Savior grieved over the hardness of the human heart throughout His whole life (Matthew 17:17), exclaiming at times: 'O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?' On this terrible day, when the most heinous crime in the history of all mankind was being committed, when the ministers of the one God, out of malice and envy, resolved to put to death the Son of God, their Savior, His sorrow for beloved humanity reached its highest point: He took into His soul all the generations of humanity and agonized over the sinfulness of each individual. V. What do the words 'And He went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him' (Mark 14:35) mean? A. Here, the hour of crucifixion should not be understood; rather, it refers to the true hour of His mental suffering, and He was heard, as the Apostle Paul said, for 'there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven, strengthening Him.' (Luke 22:43). V. Why did these mental agonies of Christ over human sinfulness become our redemption? A. Because compassionate love mysteriously united His spirit with our souls, and from the Spirit of Christ, we draw for them as from a source of holiness, thus overcoming sin." Therefore, from the presented statement of faith of the people of Karlovac, we see that they completely reject the understanding upheld by the blessed Fathers - Athanasius the Great, John Chrysostom, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, John Damascene, and many others. They have rejected the interpretation that was accepted by Pope Agatho of Rome in his letter to Emperor Constantine, which was received "with outstretched arms" by the 6th Ecumenical Council and which, according to these zealot Fathers, was spoken through the Apostle Peter. "And therefore, all compilers and disseminators of this catechism completely fall under the definition of this holy Council: 'But those who dare to compose a different faith, or to spread, or teach, or impart a different symbol to those seeking to come to the knowledge of the truth from paganism, or Judaism, or any heresy, or to introduce new words, or invent readings contrary to what we have now defined, these, if they are bishops or clerics, let them be alien - bishops from the episcopate, clerics from the clergy, and if they are monks or laymen, let them be under anathema.' Until the Karlovcians cease the propagation of this heresy and condemn it along with its persistent adherents, they all remain bound by the oath as the subverters of the decisions of this Council and inventors of a new reading unknown to the infallible Council! After this, there is no need to specifically refute the harmful news of the invented false teaching about the redemption of man through compassionate love during the Gethsemane prayer by Metropolitan Antony (as it diminishes the significance of the Cross only to the purification of the body and not to the fullness of our nature) and serves as an illustration for those ignorant ones who cannot understand the depth of thought dedicated to newly invented mysteries. All of this strongly resembles Gnosticism, with its division into psychics (soulish) and pneumatics (spiritual ones). It should be noted that in addition to the fact that this heresy directly falls under the anathema of the Ecumenical Council, it also contradicts the decrees of the Constantinople Councils of 1156-1158, which excommunicated those who rejected that the sacrifice of Golgotha was accepted by the Father and the Spirit along with the Son. Certainly, those who reject the sacrificial character of the Crucifixion fall under the same punishment. 'V. In what sense are Christ's sufferings called a sacrifice, and to whom was this sacrifice offered? A. The Lord Jesus Christ willed to save people, that is, to restore their possibility of communion with God and spiritual perfection. The people themselves, infected by sin, could not achieve this without the participation of the suffering Christ, and therefore He is the sacrifice for human sins. V. Why is He called a sacrifice offered to the heavenly Father or a sacrifice of Divine Justice? A. It depended on the Creator to arrange the nature of man in such a way that, fallen into sin, it could not rise on its own but needed the help of the God-Man sympathizing with it. V. Why did the Creator not will to arrange our soul in such a way that one act of repentance would be enough for the restoration of our former purity and holiness? A. This was required by Divine Justice, which separated repentance and regeneration from the fall - through the labors of suffering. Therefore, Christ's redemptive passion is called a sacrifice for Divine Justice. V. Why was Christ's compassionate sorrow not enough for accepting people into His communion, and why were His bodily sufferings necessary? A. Firstly, in order to sanctify not only our soul but also our body, because the sinful infection dwelled not only in human souls but also in their bodies, and secondly, so that His love for us would be more evident to people, for not everyone understands spiritual suffering, and finally - in fulfillment of the prophecies and types of the Old Testament.' In the presented text, we see that the Karlovcians have completely rejected the idea of the substitutionary Sacrifice of the Son of God offered to the Holy Trinity, through which we were delivered from sin, curse, and death, replacing it with their own fantastic scheme. Here, the impenitence and incurability of human nature are once again placed, in a manner of monastic delusions, on the Creator, and the Church is introduced to two classes of people - coarse and refined, who understand what compassionate love is. Clearly, this grossly contradicts Divine Revelation! Thus, we see that the Church Abroad has features not only of a schismatic but also of a heretical community. This is not surprising since, according to the words of St. Basil the Great, over time schism inevitably turns into heresy."

4. Karlovcians and Fascism

However, let's return to the history of this schism. After Hitler came to power, foreigners who dreamt of overthrowing communism with his help were ecstatic. The Führer, seeing such enthusiasm, also supported this movement. - 19 temples of the Karlovci jurisdiction were renovated with funds from the Reich. In 1937, the German government recognized the Karlovcian Bishop Tikhon as the head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Germany and forcibly gathered priests of all jurisdictions under his omophorion. Followers of Metropolitan Evlogy were called to the Ministry of Cults and then to the Gestapo, where they were interrogated and forced to switch to the foreigners' side. On June 12, 1938, Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) addressed Hitler with a letter of gratitude, in which he wrote: "The best people of all nations, desiring peace and justice, see in you the leader in the global struggle for peace and truth. We know from reliable sources that the believing Russian people, groaning under this bondage, awaiting their liberation, constantly pray to God to preserve you and give you the necessary help." As rightly noted by Father Vladislav Tsypin, "this address was, to say the least, a reckless document, and at any rate, apologists for Metropolitan Anastasy should not condemn the Moscow Patriarchate for its loyalty to the Soviet regime, undoubtedly much more forced than the reverence of the Karlovcians, who in 1938 were not yet under German influence, addressed to Hitler." However, it should be noted that the connection between Karlovcians and fascism is not accidental. Already in 1921, the Supreme Monarchist Council, which actually organized the Karlovci Council and shaped the views of Metropolitan Anthony, negotiated with Hitler about his assistance in the fight against Bolshevism in case he came to power. Apparently fulfilling this agreement, the Karlovci faction spiritually aided the organization of the Vlasovite army of traitors. In the 1920s, this same Council helped the ideologue of Nazism, Rosenberg, to buy the newspaper "Völkischer Beobachter," which became a mouthpiece for Nazism. And considering that National Socialism was formed by occult lodges such as "Thule" and groups of Rosicrucians, it can be noticed that the organizers of the Karlovcian schism were associated with "conservative Freemasonry" (unlike Eulogianism, which was formed with the involvement of revolutionary Freemasonry).

In the autumn, at the authorities' demand, the Karlovci Synod removed and retired Bishop Tikhon (Lyashchenko) of Berlin and appointed a German named Seraphim (Lyade) who was pleasing to the Nazis in his place. What a remarkable example of "complete independence" from godless authority. His fate and canonical status are extremely curious. He was consecrated as a bishop by the Renovators in Ukraine (including the infamous Alexander Vvedensky) and was received by Metropolitan Anthony through "repentance in the existing rank." This is highly intriguing considering that even Patriarch St. Tikhon and all the bishops of the Russian Church decided on the invalidity of ordinations performed by obvious schismatics, who also grossly violated sacred canons, which undoubtedly placed their ordinations outside the law. As Father Vladislav notes, "The Karlovci Synod, boasting the purity of its vestments, recognized his ordination, which was undoubtedly performed by schismatics who had separated from the Patriarchal Church precisely because of their ideological closeness to communism."

During the war, Metropolitan Anastasy did not openly show his sympathies towards Nazism. However, in his messages, he indicated as if the fascist occupation was a blessing and something akin to resurrection from the dead for the Russian people. It should be noted that to this day, the foreigners involved in this shameful act of collaboration with the occult movement, which sought the destruction of Russia in all its forms, do not repent. For example, the well-known Karlovci historian M. Nazarov claims that National Socialism was the only attempt to confront the global backstage and, therefore, in his published calendar, May 9th is not considered a holiday and is not highlighted as an important milestone in Russian history.

5. The Karlovci schismatics - allies of America

After the defeat of their best ally - fascism - the Karlovci schismatics once again demonstrated their "impartiality and principles" by shifting their allegiance to the Americans. The group led by Y. Grabbe and his son, Fr. G. Grabbe, initiated this move. Later, Fr. G. Grabbe was consecrated as a bishop. These individuals effectively led the Karlovci schismatics for many years and obstructed the reconciliation between Metropolitan Evlogy and Metropolitan Anthony. Fr. G. Grabbe was a member of the Masonic lodge "Lafayette-Astoria." Therefore, it is not surprising that there are claims that the Karlovci schismatics were (and still are) connected to the CIA. The current First Hierarch, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), comes from their group. He was not free from association with members of these anti-Christian societies. His father, Archpriest Ustinov, was an active Freemason and was even buried according to Masonic ritual. The most astonishing fact is that his son, who was already a priest at the time, was present during this blasphemous act. Interestingly, the current First Hierarch of the Karlovci schismatics was consecrated as a bishop by a direct order from the British military command (compare with the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles), and only two bishops participated in his ordination, one of whom was notorious for having three illegitimate children. If we touch on the question of the permissibility of ecumenical prayers, we can recall that during this sacred event, an Anglican bishop was present at the altar of the cathedral. There is also a serious question: Does Metropolitan Vitaly possess apostolic succession? After all, he was ordained a presbyter by Archbishop Seraphim (Lyade), who received (as mentioned above) episcopal "ordination" from the false renovating pseudo-bishops, including Vvedensky. So, can a dry well give water? Or is it permissible to elevate deacons directly to bishops when ordaining sacred orders? In any case, the question of apostolic succession among the foreigners is in doubt. Without it, one may suspect not just an ordinary bishop but the head of a "church" who participates in the ordinations of most of his peers.

Here we see that even in this movement, a small group of people - "conspirators" - actually plays a leading role in organizing the schism, shaping its ideology, and obstructing its resolution. All of this is further complicated by the fact that this very group is a carrier of the heresy of stavroclasm.

Since the "reorientation" of those abroad, their speeches increasingly manifest their pro-Americanism. For example, in the well-known book by Archimandrite Mitrofan Znosko-Borovsky, "Orthodoxy-Roman Catholicism-Protestantism-Sects," the USA is referred to as the "last stronghold of normal social and political order in the world." It is evident to all of us how this "bastion of virtue" and "Christian statehood" is being imposed on Orthodox Serbia. Not surprisingly, Metropolitan Vitaly forbade praying for the suffering Serbian Patriarch Pavle during NATO bombings, justifying it by stating that the Serbian Church is pro-ecumenism and recognizes the "red" Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy, who, according to the hierarchs of Karlovci, leads the "red Babylonian harlot" (this is how Metropolitan Vitaly referred to our Church in a letter to Mark of Berlin from 1996, and even Archbishop Mark himself, in January 2000, in relation to the events in Jericho, can provide numerous similar statements from the clergy from abroad, and some of them will be quoted below).

But let us return to the account of some little-known episodes in the history of the diaspora. For instance, the involvement of this organization became particularly evident in the fact of the "coronation" of the self-proclaimed Tsarevich Alexei, M. Goleniewski, which was performed by the aforementioned Secretary of the Synod Abroad, Prot. G. Grabbe, on September 30, 1964. This shameful act apparently took place because Father George Grabbe acted under the direction of the CIA (or more mysterious structures), of which Mikhail Goleniewski was an agent. We can see that the Church Abroad, which was located in the territory of the "free world," displayed a far greater lack of principle than the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, who were constantly under the looming sword of state security but never committed anything similar.

6. Promotion of schisms

Another sign of the growing schism between the Karlovcians and the Orthodox Church was the decision of the Karlovci Synod in 1976 to re-baptize Orthodox Christians who were joining them from other Churches, and to introduce for all non-Orthodox people only one form of reception - through Baptism (which essentially rejected the decisions of the 2nd and 6th Ecumenical Councils). Thus, in the English Diocese, Greeks from the Greek Orthodox Church of Greece were re-baptized. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Karlovcians at that time accepted into their clergy individuals who were forbidden by legitimate ecclesiastical authority. On the contrary, they supported all new schisms in Local Churches. In October 1960, Bishop Seraphim of Chicago participated in the consecration of a Greek Old Calendarist - the Florinite Bishop Akakios. A similar case occurred in 1962 when the Karlovci bishop Lenoty participated in the ordination of schismatics. In 1969, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) recognized the Florinite schism. On September 30, 1971, the Synod accepted the Matthewite schismatics into communion, despite the fact that their "episcopate" was established by one Bishop Matthew, which, according to the 1st canon of the Holy Apostles, cannot be considered as having preserved apostolic succession. However, even such a clear violation of sacred canons was ignored by the Church Abroad, seeking (as now with Denisenko) to create "international schisms". To maintain some decency, Metropolitan Philaret performed a cheirothesia (laying on of hands) over the Matthewite clerics. In 1974, the Karlovcians accepted into communion Peter of Astoria, who had separated from the Florinites. And finally, in 1994, they entered into communion with the "Synod in Resistance," led by Cyprian of Oropos. (This organization, widely known in Russia through its videotapes, broke away in 1984 from the schism of Gerontius, who, in turn, broke away from the schism of the Florinites {Auxentios}. Cyprian maintains Eucharistic communion with Valentine Rusantsov).

This disregard for the Universal Church and favoritism towards schismatics leads the Karlovcians to gross violations of the canons. Interestingly, one of the leaders of the Church Abroad in Russia, Lazar (Zhurbenko), accepted "Hieromonk Stefan" (V.D. Linitsky), ordained by the "Bogorodichniki," into "sacramental communion." Metropolitan Vitaly served in Jordanville with a priest of the catacomb church, Vincent, a former deacon expelled for pedophilia back in 1984, who immediately fled to the "Sekachevites" (see above). However, they do not see anything wrong with these violations of the sacred canons. As a modern Karlovci apologist, Father Timothy (Alferov) writes, "The territorial principle established in the canons of the era of the Ecumenical Councils was formed when the division of the Church corresponded to the administrative division of the Christian Empire. With the fall of the Orthodox Russian Kingdom, this principle has limited (!) application and can only be one of the means to achieve the main goal - the preservation of true Orthodoxy," under which the author implies his sect and the related schisms. And if one can ignore some canons, why not others? By the way, the statement of Father Timothy falls under the scope of the 1st canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and brings upon him the penalties directed against violators of those canons which he restricted.

It should be noted that despite all these canonical violations, in the eyes of many Orthodox believers, the Karlovcians seem particularly attractive because of their supposed struggle against ecumenism, declared at the council in 1983, which anathematized the branch theory and all participants in the ecumenical movement. However, even here, the Karlovcian’s principled stance is highly conditional. It immediately ends when it comes to finances. To this day, the German Diocese of the Church Abroad receives financial aid from ecumenical organizations. There is a clear double standard at play here! (see "Pravoslavnaya Moskva," N 2-3, 1997). During the Jericho conflict, they sought help from the Pope of Rome. And, in general, it should be noted that the introduction of a double standard is completely unacceptable to the Orthodox conscience, where one side (the ecumenists and simply Orthodox hierarchs) is guilty of the smallest triviality and are accused of violating sacred canons even when it was not the case at all, while explicit schismatics are allowed to commit all possible crimes as long as they are on our side. This is a manifestation of partisan thinking, fundamentally contradicting Divine Revelation.

7. The creation of a parallel church in Russia

However, the most blatant violation of sacred canons was the establishment of the "Russian Church Abroad in Russia." The beginning of this organization was laid at the Council of the Church Abroad under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Vitaly, held on May 2-3, 1990. It was decided to start opening parishes of their church on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchal Church. Thus, an "alternative church" emerged in Russia.

Currently, within our country, this organization harbors several pseudo-bishops and fewer than a hundred parishes. However, they are actively engaged in seducing members of Christ's Church into schism. The composition of this "church" is quite diverse. Some eloquent critics have aptly called it the "cesspool of the Moscow Patriarchate." On one hand, it includes those who have been rightfully banned by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority for their crimes, yet they present themselves as champions of truth against the "KGB Patriarchate" and are welcomed with open arms into the embrace of schism. On the other hand, its members consist of people who, under the influence of pride, dare to judge the Church and wish to see Her as a "haven of saints," not a hospital for the healing of sick souls. It is they who create an aura of "genuinely Orthodox" fighters for the purity of faith within this community, although they are far from being true confessors filled with humility and love, and who fear losing unity with the Church more than death itself. The difference between them and genuine confessors, who are humble, full of love, and afraid to break the unity with the Church, is as vast as the difference between heaven and hell.

Over time, one of its founders, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), separated from this organization and initiated his own schism known as the "Free Russian Orthodox Church." This individual is a highly characteristic example of a typical schismatic. He was awarded an honorary diploma for participating in the ecumenical movement, accused of close ties with secret services, and known for his licentious behavior. Under the threat of ecclesiastical trial, he joined the Karlovcians and was received by them with open arms. Immediately after his transition, they ordained him as a "bishop," but three years later, they themselves stripped him of this rank due to his immorality. He did not submit to this decision and established his own sect, which entered into communion with one of the Greek schismatic groups. One of the most active members of this group is the defrocked priest Mikhail Ardov, who serves as the rector of the "church" at the Golovinsky Cemetery in Moscow. It should be noted that the members of this group still do not want to sever ties with the Karlovcians.

The canonical situation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in Russia is quite sad. This organization, boasting of its "purity," has grossly violated several sacred canons:

1. Contrary to Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council, bishops were consecrated without the consent of the legitimate Primate, making their ordinations invalid (see Canon 19 of the Council of Antioch). Not a single bishop of the Russian Church participated in this, contradicting Canon 4 of the First Ecumenical Council and Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

2. In violation of Canon 1 of the Apostles, the hierarchy of ROCOR includes "Bishop" Lazar (Zhurbenko), who was consecrated by a single bishop! Such a consecration has never been recognized in the Universal Church (see Canon 60 of the Council of Carthage and Canon 19 of the Council of Antioch). Therefore, all the clergy of the Russians Abroad who trace their ordination back to him lack apostolic succession.

3. In violation of Canon 16 of the Second Ecumenical Council, bishops were consecrated for cities that already had their own pastors.

4. Contrary to Canons 14 of the Apostles, 16 of the First Ecumenical Council, 20 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and Canons 65, 91, and 101 of the Council of Carthage, bishops ordained clerics in other dioceses and extended their authority over them.

5. In violation of Canon 16 of the Apostles, they received and embraced those who were banned and excommunicated by other bishops, which calls for their excommunication (see Canon 3 of the Council of Antioch and Canon 13 of the Council of Sardica).

6. All the clergy of ROCOR in Russia, contrary to Canons 13, 14, and 15 of the Second Ecumenical Council, have cut off canonical communion with their legitimate Primate and all the bishops' synod, not hearing from them any heresy "condemned by Ecumenical Councils or the Fathers, namely, when they preach heresy publicly in the Church." For this, they should be defrocked, and laypeople should be excommunicated from the Church as schismatics.

7. Priests who transferred from the Church to ROCOR, according to the rule of the 31st Apostolic Canon, should be excommunicated, and according to Canons 10 of Carthage and 6 of Gangra, they should be anathematized.

8. Therefore, in accordance with Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great, ROCOR is considered a schism. "For schismatics are called those who have split opinions on certain church matters and issues that allow healing... for example, to think differently about repentance than what is held true in the Church."

9. Since this schismatic organization is very similar to Donatism, all the canons against this sect should be applied to them (Canons 57, 68, and 112 of the Council of Carthage).

10. Since there is no grace in schism, the sacraments are not performed among the Russians Abroad. However, our hierarchical authority, driven by love, has decided, with condescension, to receive Russian schismatics through a second rite of reception. This decision was made in 1993 in the case of the priest Oleg Stenyayev, who returned to Christ the Savior.

11. Regarding the parishes of ROCOR located outside the canonical territory of the Russian Church, the Church has not yet given its final judgment on them in a Local Council, and therefore, for the time being, it admits those who wish to partake of the Holy Chalice while awaiting their return. (The Church acted similarly in the initial stage of the development of Monophysitism). However, Christians leaving our country must be cautious and cannot enter into Eucharistic communion with those abroad.

After discovering such gross violations of the holy canons by the diaspora, let us ask them:

Firstly, why did you leave the Church under the pretext of heresy that no one has heard of, while commemorating Metropolitan Vitaly, who preaches from the ambo an obvious heresy that undermines the very foundations of God's house (stavroclasm)?

Secondly, how will you prove your communion with the Apostles? With which Apostolic see do you have communion? - No Local Church recognizes you! - You have no communion with the throne of the Apostle James, the brother of the Lord (see the statement of Metropolitan Timothy of Lydda in July 1997), nor with the thrones of the Apostles Mark, Peter, Andrew, Paul, and John. - So with whom do you partake of the same Chalice? As mentioned above, even your apostolic succession is in question. So it is not surprising that even the Serbian Orthodox Church, which has long continued to communicate with the schismatics, recently stated through His Holiness Patriarch Pavle: 

"...our Holy Synod of Bishops has prohibited the venerable diocesan hierarchs from granting any canonical permissions to the clergy to go under the jurisdiction of the mentioned 'church.' (We hope that they will strictly adhere to this.)

We regret that such a thing could happen and hope that this incident will not spoil the long-standing and good fraternal relations throughout our shared history

With this hope, we ask Your Holiness and Your Holiness's beloved Russian Orthodox Church to not consider our inadvertence that occurred in the city of Bari as a sin, with the assurance that such an unpleasant incident will not happen again.

Your Holiness is aware of the brotherly and Christian attitude of the Serbian Orthodox Church and its people towards Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, bishops, monks, and Russian people who fled the communist violence in 1918. This fraternal relationship continued until representatives of the Russian Church Abroad began to extend their priesthood onto the territory of Russia, thereby violating the canonical authority of the Russian Patriarchate. The Holy Synod has repeatedly expressed its protests to the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad in America and demanded that such actions be stopped as they are anti-canonical and deserving of condemnation.” (Letter to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy in connection with the events in Bari). 

So said the last Church through which the Church Abroad extends its influence...

Our Advocate and Comforter, the Spirit of truth, will bring forth His witnesses-saints who shone in the Catholic Church after 1927. What will you say to St. Silouan of Mount Athos and St. Justin of Serbia, St. Lawrence of Chernigov and St. Kuksha of Odessa, St. Sebastian of Karaganda and Archbishop Luke of Crimea? You will have no answer before the confessor, Bishop Afanasy (Sakharov), and the holy martyr Illarion (Troitsky), the holy martyr Seraphim (Chichagov), and the holy martyr Valentine (Sventsitsky). Caucasian hermits and Athonite recluses will accuse you. You will be questioned by the New Martyrs of Russia and the multitude of simple Christians who preserved the Russian Orthodox Church during the severe persecutions, a feat that you have scorned! You will have no response before this cloud of witnesses, whom you have mixed with mud. Likewise, you will not be able to explain how the grace-filled fire descends in the Church that is in Eucharistic communion with the "graceless" Moscow Patriarchate!

We are aware of the response of the Karlovci group to these accusations. They claim that the entire Universal Church has departed from Christ, and only they and their allies - the Old Calendarists - have preserved unadulterated Orthodoxy. To justify their position, they cite scandalous statements made by certain hierarchs of Local Churches at various times and argue that if these hierarchs were not condemned by their own Churches for these statements, then all these Churches are heretical, just like those Churches that are in communion with them. This position has been known to Christians since the times of Novatianism and Donatism, and it was rejected by the Church's consciousness even back then. They also refer to the alleged historical instances when the entire Church supposedly fell into heresy. This supposedly happened during the Arian controversy, Monophysitism, and the iconoclastic period. However, these claims are false. During the reign of Arianism, Orthodoxy was preserved by the Alexandrian, Roman, Carthaginian, British, Gallic, Spanish, and Hellenic Churches. When the heresy of Monophysitism spread, the Jerusalem and Carthaginian Churches resisted it, along with, except for one Pope Honorius, the Roman Church. Thus, when St. Maximus the Confessor uttered his famous phrase, it was rhetorical rather than dogmatic. Iconoclasm only affected the Churches of Constantinople and Gaul. Therefore, it is impossible to find a time when the entire Church fell into heresy, and this is not the case now. By the way, the Ecumenical Councils did not determine the degree of orthodoxy of bishops based on whether they commemorated heretical hierarchs in their diptychs but rather by their statements of faith. (The Sixth Ecumenical Council left the names of Sergius, Pyrrhus, Honorius, and Cyrus in the diptychs of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, who did not confess in Christ one will). Moreover, the Church does not know such a mechanism for automatically infecting the entire Church through an uncondemned heretic. Examples of this can be found in Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who were condemned after their deaths.

8. Modern Karlovcians about the Orthodox Church

Many Russian Orthodox Christians adhere to the biased myth that there are no differences between the Orthodox Church and the Karlovcians, and that only wicked ecumenists, fearing exposure, are hindering the long-awaited reunification of the "two branches of Russian Orthodoxy." However, from a theological perspective, such an approach is absurd. Orthodox theology does not embrace the Protestant branch theory, and therefore, such an opinion makes no sense. From a canonical point of view, there cannot and should not be [legal] status for any Local Church that not only lacks its canonical territory and extends worldwide, including into other Local Churches, but also holds a different doctrine from them, while having no eucharistic communion with them. Such an organization is called either an arbitrary assembly (though this could only be applied to the Karlovcians until 1926), or a schism or a heretical community. To which of the latter two categories it belongs should be determined either by the Local Council of the Russian Church or (which would be the best course) by an Ecumenical Council (or a decision of the heads of the Local Churches).

Moreover, the Karlovcians themselves do not desire to perceive our Church as one of the branches of Russian Orthodoxy. In a recently published book by Russian schismatics, which is quite popular among some misguided zealots (Hieromonk Timofey, Hieromonk Dionisiy, “On the Church, the Orthodox Kingdom, and the Last Times,” M. Russkaya ideya, 1998), our Church is referred to as follows: "On this holy place, there is a despicable state of neglect (instead of the Bride of Christ, the true Church - it is called the Babylonian harlot, the false Church)" (p. 168). "Just as the true Church stands on Peter's confession of Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:16-18), the opposite has happened here. Someone said to the Bolsheviks: 'Thank you for your attention to the needs of believers,' and received the following reply: 'Blessed are you, Sergius, for indeed it is not flesh and blood, but our Father Himself who revealed this to you. And on this sand of your confession, He will build His Church, and the gates of Paradise will not be closed to it. And I will give you the keys to Hades, and all those whom you bind in participation in your actions on earth will be bound in Hades'" (pp. 163-164).

For any reasonable Orthodox Christian, it is evident that one who holds such an attitude towards the Patriarchate cannot consider it as their parallel branch. Therefore, we are faced with the necessity of choosing between the Karlovcians and the Universal Orthodox Church.

It is interesting to consider the points that the Karlovcians now present as conditions for "reunification," set forth by "Bishop" Euthymius in 1997 (and it should be noted that it continuously grows, as whenever the Church fulfills one of their demands, the schismatics put forward another).

1. Condemnation of "Sergianism," this mythical "heresy of actions" invented by the schismatics. For them, it does not matter that Patriarch Alexy already stated in 1992 that our Church is not bound by this historical document.

2. Non-veneration of the New Martyrs, although we have glorified them more than the Karlovcians. But by New Martyrs, they mean the schismatics - Josephites, the majority of whom also became traitors.

3. The assertion that the majority of our episcopate is "appointed by the authorities" and therefore only "conditionally valid" (a new invention by the Karlovcians, partly borrowed from the popovtsy Old Believers). They are not troubled by the fact that by 1990, we had about 60 bishops, and now there are over 130. Moreover, before the fall of communism, all discussions about bishops being appointed by the authorities were regarded as rumors, and such an occurrence, punishable by the 30th canon of the Holy Apostles, does not refer to the approval of an hierarch's consecration by the authorities but rather to a form of simony. The former has always existed in Byzantium, Russia (where even formally, the initiator of consecration was not a synod of bishops, but the emperor), and the Ottoman Empire. Rather, the violator of the mentioned canons was the current First Hierarch of the Karlovcians - Metropolitan Vitaly.

4. Participation in the ecumenical movement. In this matter, it is necessary to distinguish the wheat from the tares. Undoubtedly, the "branch theory" is a clear heresy, which, however, almost nobody in our Church adheres to, except for a handful of modernists who are, in fact, in schism. The mere presence at ecumenical events, not accompanied by a change in Orthodox ecclesiology, should be examined in each individual case by the conciliar consciousness of the Church in terms of adherence to canonical norms and practical usefulness – i.e., whether heretics are being joined to Orthodoxy or not. Joint prayers with heretics are in themselves not heretical but a disciplinary offense that entails ecclesiastical judgment and not immediate loss of hierarchical grace for those who prayed.

5. However, the most astonishing accusation is the charging of us with usury and wealth. This accusation is entirely identical to the position of the heresy of the Judaizers, who also considered the Church graceless because it is wealthy and charges money for its services. The same is said by the Church and by Fr. Timothy, accusing it of "trading in sacred objects and mysteries for everyone, including the godless" (p. 127). The "tobacco" and "vodka" scandals themselves are, to a large extent, the product of the anti-Christian press, and it is even more touching to see such unity between schismatics and unbelievers!

From everything said above, the righteousness of our saints, such as St. Lavrentiy of Chernigov and Fr. Seraphim (Tyapochkin), becomes evident. They warned against communion with the Church Abroad and directly called it a schism. Let us remember that the sin of schism, if not healed through repentance, inevitably destroys a person. Therefore, we shall flee from those people who wish to deprive us of eternal life.

Source: 

https://web.archive.org/web/20021108091031/http://antirascol.nm.ru/zarraskol.htm (draft translation)