1998 Appeal of Three Monks from Jordanville

 1998 Appeal of Three Monks from Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, NY

To His Eminence,

The Most Reverend Vitaly,

Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,

First Hierarch of ROCOR, and the entire Hierarchical Synod

Appeal

Your Eminence, Most Reverend Vladyka Vitaly,

Your Graces, Fathers, Archpastors!

Bless!

We humbly address you to explain the reasons for our departure from the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville.

First Reason: Archimandrite Peter (Lukyanov) continues to defend the unorthodox "catechism" that was banned by the Synod and the Spiritual Council of the monastery. Archbishop Laurus was informed of this, but there was no reaction. On the contrary, Archbishop Laurus said that Archimandrite Peter is not a heretic, and that there is nothing unorthodox in the "catechism," citing the opinions of Archbishop Mark and Protopriest Stephen Pavlenko, who said, "Everyone thinks according to their level of corruption." It turns out this applies to the Synod as well. May it not be so.

Second Reason: The joint prayer at the akathist to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker between Archbishop Laurus and an abbot from the Serbian Church, which is part of the World Council of Churches—the stronghold of the ecumenical heresy. When we refused to participate in this prayer, Archbishop Laurus promised "to punish us next time," although he did approve of our acting according to our conscience and sincerely. When asked, "Is the Serbian Church a member of the WCC and does it participate in the ecumenical movement?" Archbishop Laurus answered, "Yes, it is." He also added that "indeed, Archbishop Anthony of Western America and San Francisco rushed to announce to the Synod that the Serbian Church had left the WCC." When we declared that we would not concelebrate or pray with the ecumenists-Serbs, Archbishop Laurus replied, "But we will!" and cited the example of Archbishops Anthony, Mark, Alipy, and Hilarion, who concelebrate with the Serbs. (Note: Here, Archbishop Laurus is, to put it mildly, not telling the truth, because, according to Archbishop Hilarion, "he does not concelebrate with the Serbs" — ed.). It is important to note that we acted here under the blessing of our spiritual father, Archimandrite Luke (Muryanka), who blessed us in this case to "act according to our conscience, because serving with the Serbs-ecumenists is compromising it," which we did: we separated ourselves. The blessing of a spiritual father, if it is right, cannot be overridden even by a Council.

Third Reason: The reception of the Serbian Bishop Artemije at the monastery with bell ringing and orlets; furthermore, at the end of the liturgy served by Archimandrite Peter (Lukyanov), the Serbian bishop held the cross for veneration and distributed antidoron. After this event, Hieromonk John (Berzins) gave a blessing with the words: "By the prayers of Vladyka Artemije..." (Note: Hieromonk John, who calls himself the "universal wanderer," apparently has a complete lack of understanding of an Orthodox blessing, which he accompanies with an arbitrary formula instead of the holy traditional words — ed.). When we expressed our bewilderment about this meeting, which was a scandal for many, Archbishop Laurus replied: "Archimandrite Peter arranged all this." So, who really manages the monastery, who is the true abbot—Archbishop Laurus or Archimandrite Peter (Lukyanov)? It is important to emphasize that Bishop Gabriel of Manhattan spoke with us about this issue, saying, "Just because Serbian Bishop Artemije does not recognize our Church as canonical, I would not have met with him." Bishop Gabriel fully supported us, saying that he agreed with us because we acted correctly and should not fear to speak the truth and act according to Christian conscience. (During the Serbian bishop's stay at the monastery, we did not go to the church or the refectory, which we informed the Abbot about). Praying with Serbs-ecumenists is the same as praying with the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, with whom they are in liturgical communion.

Fourth Reason: In the above-mentioned behavior, we relied on the decision of the 1983 ROCOR Council in Mansonville, which anathematized the heresy of ecumenism, ecumenists, and all those who associate with them, even out of some supposed love or help. But Archbishop Laurus considers this Council "robber-like," because, according to him, it was orchestrated by Grabbe. We do not agree with such a label, because this Council was accepted by the conciliar opinion of the Church, it is referenced worldwide, and it can only be overturned by another Council. Otherwise, "they fall under their own anathema."

Fifth Reason: Joint prayers (in which we did not participate) in the church and refectory with Bishop Basil (Rodzianko) of the American Metropolia, who attended them wearing a panagia and with a staff. ROCOR has no communion with this new-style and schismatic Metropolia. When we expressed that this caused us scandal, Archbishop Laurus replied: "I cannot run after everyone and tear off their panagias." Of course, that is unnecessary, but it is necessary to protect your flock from such contacts.

Sixth Reason: In the monastery church, new calendarists and those belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate are allowed to receive communion. Also, a priest from the Moscow Patriarchate prayed in the church and approached for anointing with the brethren, and everyone knew where he was from.

Seventh Reason: Archbishop Laurus considers the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) to be the Mother Church and makes every effort to achieve reunification with it. For example, he teaches the subject of Canon Law at the seminary using the heretical Patriarchal textbook by V. Tsypin. For 70 years, ROCOR taught its flock that the MP is (we quote verbatim from the journal Orthodox Russia): a "false Church," "red Church," "Soviet Church," "satanic Church," "organization of Satan," and "church of deceivers." Metropolitan Anastasy bequeathed not to have "...any canonical, prayerful, or even simple everyday communion" with the MP. Metropolitan Philaret exhorted that there can be no dialogue with heretics, only a monologue. He was speaking about the MP, which, as everyone knows, is deeply immersed in the heresies of Sergianism and ecumenism. By recognizing the MP as a Church, the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia are blasphemed, as they considered the MP to be graceless and not a Church, for which they suffered and received the crown of martyrdom. Additionally, Archbishop Laurus calls the catacomb Christians, who have always been faithful to ROCOR, "self-consecrated." We categorically disagree with these views of Archbishop Laurus, as they contradict the traditional teachings and positions of ROCOR.

Eighth Reason: Archbishop Laurus believes that "the dogmas of the Church are theory, but in practice, it is something completely different." For example, regarding the moment of the Incarnation of our Savior, he asserts that it can be said to have occurred either at the moment of the Nativity or at the moment of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos. (Note: "According to the tradition of the Church, on this day, March 25th (Feast of the Annunciation), the Incarnation occurred..." The Desk Reference Book for Church-Slavonic Services, p. 126 – ed.)

Ninth Reason: Archbishop Laurus does not see any deviation from Orthodoxy in the union of the Antiochian Patriarchate (and the MP, which is in communion with it) with the Monophysites, but only a "swallowing up" of the latter.

Tenth Reason: Hieromonk John (Berzins) commemorates Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who falls under three anathemas: as a new calendarist, a Mason (the name of the lodge is "X.A.N."), and an ecumenist (Note: "The Church does not pray for unbelievers (heretics and schismatics), neither for the living nor for the dead, but prays only for the Orthodox" (Simeon of Thessalonica, ch. 94, Orthodox Confession, 4.1, answer to question 92) Commemoration of the Living and the Dead, OR, No. 15, 1999, p. 3 – ed.). When we first asked him if he considered Patriarch Bartholomew Orthodox, Hieromonk John answered affirmatively, and when asked if he had a blessing to commemorate him, he assured us that he had discussed the matter with Archbishop Laurus while still on Mount Athos. After two admonitions, which had no effect, we informed Hieromonk John that we could no longer have Eucharistic and prayerful communion with him, as, according to the rules of the Church of Christ, it is unacceptable to commemorate a heretic at the proskomedia. At that time, Archbishop Laurus was in Russia, and when he was informed of this, he forbade Hieromonk Paisios and Hieromonk John by telephone. However, two days later, Hieromonk John somehow resumed serving and continues to serve to this day, even though the scandal has not been resolved. Hieromonk Paisios remains under prohibition to this day, although he was never a cleric of the Syracuse-Holy Trinity Diocese and was on leave; at that time, he was studying at Holy Trinity Seminary. Hierodeacon Ambrose was forbidden without any explanation on September 17/30, 1997: through his spiritual father, Archimandrite Luke, he was informed that he was forbidden and that a letter with an explanation would be sent to him. He has still not received this letter. Riasophore monk Oleg was excommunicated from communion for an indefinite period, although any monk can leave the monastery if matters of faith are at stake.

In turn, Hieromonk John mockingly asked us: "How will you now come to the refectory, prepared by a heretic, and eat the food sacrificed to idols?" (Note: Admitting oneself as a "heretic" even in a joking manner is unthinkable for an Orthodox Christian, as such "confession," according to Abba Agathon, deprives one of communion with Christ – ed.). Therefore, we had to refrain from attending the church and refectory, as no one stopped him. When Archbishop Laurus returned to the monastery, he did not want to see us, but after the intercession of Vladyka Gabriel, he finally agreed to meet. Archbishop Laurus told us that commemorating Patriarch Bartholomew at the proskomedia is, of course, unacceptable, with which we naturally agreed. We informed Archbishop Laurus that for two weeks we had not been attending the church or the refectory due to these unlawful actions of Hieromonk John, but there was no reaction to this. Then, when Archbishop Laurus asked: "What do you want?" we suggested that Hieromonk John (Berzins) should repent from the ambo, as the entire brotherhood was greatly scandalized and confused, but Archbishop Laurus replied that "he was not going to stage a show with Hieromonk John's repentance." Two weeks later, we submitted a request to be released from the Syracuse-Holy Trinity Diocese, as we could no longer avoid attending services and prayers in the church, because Archbishop Laurus made no attempts at all to resolve the issues, avoiding (literally!) meetings with us.

We are still perplexed by the extent of such a hostile attitude towards us from Archbishop Laurus. In our last conversation before leaving the monastery, Archbishop Laurus informed us that we were forbidden, but we did not receive any clarification on the duration of this prohibition, which we consider uncanonical. Archbishop Laurus justified his prohibition by citing our absence from church for one month. However, this is deceitful: two weeks earlier, we had informed him that we were forced to avoid attending church, but he waited a month to accuse us of not attending church, even though he could have easily put an end to all the disorder immediately. But once again, we explained to Archbishop Laurus the reason for our actions, to which he responded, leaving us in great confusion and scandal: "Show me the book where it is written that one cannot commemorate (at the proskomedia) Patriarch Bartholomew?" (Note: Could it be that the rector of the seminary and a professor of Dogmatics and Canon Law does not know, even without a "book," that commemorating, for example, Satan and all his angels (which is not written in any "book") is unacceptable at the proskomedia, in prayer services, or during the liturgy, just as it is unacceptable to commemorate an obvious heretic-ecumenist—ed.).

For the above reasons, we left Holy Trinity Monastery, as we do not consider Archbishop Laurus to be "rightly dividing the word of truth."

In conclusion, we must say that we acted out of conviction, according to our Christian conscience and sincerely, without intending to cause the "rebellions, schisms, demonstrations, and scandals for the brotherhood" that Archbishop Laurus attributes to us. This is a lie! Moreover, the spiritual father and the majority of the monastery's brotherhood fully agreed with our position but only objected to the methods, i.e., the refusal to pray together with someone who commemorates a heretic.

We consider ourselves the least of sinners, and as far as forgiveness in a moral sense is concerned, we are ready to ask for it from anyone we have ever offended or scandalized. But as for repentance in this matter of faith, there can be no question of it. When the faith of Christ is trampled and blasphemed, Orthodox believers do not ask for forgiveness from its blasphemers, for that would be a betrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ, a renunciation of Him, and that is something we neither want nor desire. We rely on the will of God. Amen.

Your Eminence and Your Graces, the humble monks:

Hieromonk Paisios

Hierodeacon Ambrose

Riasophore Monk Oleg

March 5/18, 1998

Martyr Conon of Isauria

Translated from the original Russian