2007 Answer of Bishop Photii of Triaditsa to the Appeal of ROCOR-MP

Answer of Bishop Photii of Triaditsa to the Appeal of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (Moscow Patriarchate) on June 16/29, 2007

His Eminence,

Most Reverend LAURUS,

Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America

Copy: To the Most Reverend Archbishops Mark and Kyrill,

and the Most Reverend Bishops Peter and Gabriel

Sofia, July 1/14, 2007

Feast of the Holy Unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian,

who suffered in Rome,

and of St. John of Rila, the wonderworker.

Your Eminence,
Most Reverend Master!

Recalling our warm brotherly relations in the recent past, I write to you now with pain. Believe me, I say this completely sincerely, not for the sake of mere rhetoric.

In response to the synodal letter of June 16/29 of this year, signed by Your Eminence, the Most Reverend Archbishops Mark and Kyrill, and the Most Reverend Bishops Peter and Gabriel, I would like to note the following:

1. In connection with the request mentioned in this letter to treat "the issue of reconciliation with the Church in Russia with understanding and the awareness that this is an internal matter of the Russian Church," I will allow myself to remind Your Eminence of the words contained in my letter to you of April 18/May 1, 2006:

Your Eminence, I would like to <...> emphasize the thought that I am deliberately refraining from public statements regarding the negotiations on the reconciliation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with the Moscow Patriarchate until the completion of this negotiation process in its main and principal points. Such premature statements would be inappropriate on my part and would constitute an act of interference in the affairs of a self-governing Sister Church. Nevertheless, I could not refrain from expressing to you in private my concern regarding certain characteristics and tendencies of the negotiation process at its current stage. I dare to say this not as a cold critic or an outside observer, but as a person and a bishop who loves the Holy Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and feels the pain from the wounds in its Body. What troubles me, Holy Master, is the lack, in my opinion, of sufficiently deep and principled theological vision and understanding of the premises, initial positions, content, and essence of the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. Moreover, it saddens me to note certain characteristics of the content and essence of the dialogue itself. By way of illustration, I would like to point out the disturbing use of a logical-verbal method that levels differences with the help of either bureaucratic, or flexible and vague theological and ecclesiastical-political language; also, a 'double standard' in some church-historical and theological evaluations of key events and issues leaves a painful impression; furthermore, the dialogue seems to be threateningly subordinated to the mentality traditionally inherent in the Moscow Patriarchate, which is marked by a skillful ecclesiastical-political and diplomatic way of thinking, as well as <...> the clearly or cryptically Sergianist experience of compromising adaptation to 'the realities of modernity' at the cost of relativizing the truth.

2. Regarding the Resolution of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the cessation of Eucharistic communion with the Old Calendar Synods of the Romanian and Bulgarian Churches (approved at the Synod session on August 24/September 6, 2006), which I officially received as an Appendix to your letter of June 16/29 of this year, I would again like to remind you of what I stated on this matter in my letter to Your Eminence on January 12/25 of this year:

This Resolution caused me feelings of perplexity, heaviness, and sorrow. In the following lines, I will focus on its content.

In the first point of the Resolution, among other things, the following is stated: "... our Church continues to brotherly call upon these Churches to follow our example and enter into dialogue with the respective Local Churches to heal the wounds of division and affirm their canonical status while preserving the ecclesiastical calendar." Is unity with the so-called official local churches a condition for affirming the canonical status of our Churches? The logic of the quotation implies that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia itself did not have an affirmed canonical status until its union with the Moscow Patriarchate! But in reality, the spiritual authenticity of Tradition (which includes the patristic "eortology" = ecclesiastical calendar), that is, the fullness of Christ's Truth, gives meaning to the entire visible structure of the Church with its canonicity and official status. Or, in other words, the living preservation of the spiritually authentic Tradition of the Church is the source of the canonicity and specific canonical status of a given Local Church, while canonicity and "official status," understood in a formal sense, are by no means themselves the source and guarantee of this fullness of Truth and the spiritual authenticity of Tradition.

In the second point of the Resolution, it is mentioned that the Romanian and Bulgarian Churches did not accept the brotherly calls of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to follow its example and to enter into dialogue with the respective Local Churches. As for me personally, during our official conversation, Fr. Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedev directly asked me how I viewed the possibility of heading the Old Calendar diocese with all our parishes, churches, and monasteries under the Bulgarian Patriarchate. I replied that such an approach is fundamentally unacceptable to me, as it transfers the logic of the Latin Union onto Orthodox soil, especially since for our Church, the criterion for establishing Eucharistic communion is one of confession of faith, spiritually substantive, and not formal-administrative—as if our inclusion in a patriarchate engulfed in deep apostatic processes would ipso facto transform us from "schismatics" into "canonical members of the Church." This latter view is absurd in many respects, not least because of the lack of substance and even a certain immorality in the understanding that Orthodox people who cherish the dogmatic and canonical Tradition of the Church, and their actions, are "valid" in an ecclesiastical sense only in their officially recognized functions of a purely formal, self-sufficient legality.

In this second point of the Resolution, there is also a chronological error—the Epistle of the Synod in Resistance on the "cessation of church communion with us (i.e., the ROCOR)" did not follow, but preceded Your Eminence's corresponding letters to the Primates of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches. This Epistle was issued on November 22, 2005 (Old Style) [1].

As for the canonical communion of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches with the Synod in Resistance, which had ceased its communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, this situation is indeed problematic in a canonical sense. However, from 1992 to 1994, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia itself was in Eucharistic communion with the Romanian Old Calendar Church, but not with the Bulgarian and Greek Churches, which, for their part, at the same time, were in full church communion with the Romanian Church.

The third and final point of the Resolution is the most distressing. It is true that the term "cessation of Eucharistic communion," as recorded in the official journal of ROCOR Church Life (Nos. 3-4, May-June-July-August 2006, p. 22), is softened by the diplomatic expression "suspension of concelebration." However, this latter formulation introduces even more ambiguity and vagueness into the meaning of the entire third point.

Firstly, the word "suspension" implies the cessation of an action for a certain, usually not very long, period. In the context of this expression, there is no clear and specific mention of whether there is a prospect of either the resumption or the permanent cessation of Eucharistic communion. More precisely, the chosen wording subtly and implicitly points to the latter prospect. But why was this not stated plainly and clearly?

Secondly, the Moscow Patriarchate, with which ROCOR has established Eucharistic communion (it is only a matter of technical time until this is realized), considers the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches to be "non-canonical groups." For example, Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) speaks about the Eucharistic communion "in which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia formally remains, in any case, with non-canonical groups that have separated themselves for various reasons from other Local Orthodox Churches and operate, in particular, on the canonical territory of the Romanian, Bulgarian, and Greek Churches." [2] Incidentally, ROCOR representatives themselves, members of the Commission of this Church for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, during the negotiation process, refer to our Churches as "groups." In Church Life (Nos. 5-6, 2005, p. 14), it states: "Fr. Alexander: Reads the point regarding question No. 3 from the Protocol of the 5th session, in which the proposal is outlined to break our Eucharistic communion with the Old Calendar Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian groups, due to their rejection of our possible Eucharistic communion with the MP. It was decided to bring this proposal for consideration at the next Arch. Sobor in 2006."

As a result, it turns out that the Holy Synod of ROCOR does not have a clear classification of the ecclesiological status of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches, which in this "transitional period" are referred to sometimes as Churches, and sometimes as groups. At the same time, the Holy Synod of ROCOR has already approved the Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, which unequivocally and categorically considers our Churches to be "non-canonical groups." In such a case, how will ROCOR view us in the near future? We were once Sister Churches for them. Now, from their point of view, we are sometimes Churches, sometimes groups, and after some time, in all likelihood, we will be seen as nothing more than "schismatics, outside of communion with the Orthodox Local Churches"!

Thirdly, in light of all that has been said, the conclusion of the Resolution about maintaining brotherly relations with our two Churches, despite the so-called suspension of concelebration with us and the outlined ecclesiological ambiguity, is completely incomprehensible.

3. It is difficult for me to understand the following statement in the letter sent to me: "We do not intend in any way to retreat from our testimony to true Orthodoxy before the whole world, and we will continue to condemn harmful ecumenism and modernism." If ecumenism is "harmful" and subject to condemnation, then how can one explain the combination of this position with the establishment of Eucharistic communion with the ecumenical leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate? Especially considering that it is precisely because of ecumenism that some hierarchs, along with a large number of clergy and faithful within the Patriarchate itself, are increasingly in categorical disagreement with it.

4. In the synodal letter, the following is mentioned: "We have familiarized ourselves with some of your statements regarding the process of restoring unity in the Russian Church." Further, after the assertion that "we cannot but agree with the following words of yours, recently published," quotes from my conversations with our parishioners, published online in Russian translation, are provided. After this list of quotes, the following thought is expressed: "Precisely in connection with these statements of yours, we feel it is our duty, in good conscience, to brotherly warn you that the leaders of the 'opposition' to the reconciliation process are the very people with a fanatical mindset who do not accept your balanced and moderate position and deny the presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate."

I would not wish to qualify the criterion by which the mentioned quotes were selected. However, if "fanatical-minded people" do not accept the thoughts of mine quoted in the synodal letter, it is evident that your Synod does not accept the thoughts diplomatically omitted by the author of the letter, which are part of the same text of mine and are in organic unity in meaning with the quotes contained in the letter.

5. Allow me to point out the incorrectness of the following statement in the synodal letter: "And the leader of this opposition, the suspended bishop Agafangel, is precisely one of the hastily and thoughtlessly consecrated bishops that you have condemned." In my published text, I speak critically of the practice of hasty ordinations, but I do not examine individual cases of such ordinations, nor do I mention specific persons. I would not allow myself such specificity. In particular, I stated: "For the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of the first generation of emigration, the following was characteristic: they did not ordain hastily and thoughtlessly—which, unfortunately, occurred recently, including during the time of Metropolitan Vitaly—they never ordained any cleric to the episcopate without careful consideration, but always after thorough examination."

6. Regarding the sorrowful events in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia after May 17 and the request sent to me to "not associate with such 'oppositionists' who only discredit the testimony of Orthodoxy and attempt to create a schismatic structure under the guise of 'preserving' the original Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia." I strive, to the best of my abilities, to closely follow these events in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church from the perspective of the position of our Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church. We are discussing the complex and truly tragic situation together with our Greek and Romanian brothers. We pray to the Lord that we may be guided by a peaceful and humble spirit, a willingness to sacrifice all that is purely human in order to achieve ecclesiastical peace and unity, but at the same time a striving to stand firmly in defense of Orthodoxy and a resolute rejection of all compromises regarding the tenets of our holy Faith.

"To you, as doctors," writes St. Basil the Great to the physician Eustathius, "it is undesirable to burn the patient or make him suffer in any other way, but you agree to this, following the demands of the disease. Sailors, likewise, do not voluntarily throw the cargo overboard, but in order to avoid shipwreck, they accept the loss of cargo, preferring life in poverty over death. Therefore, consider that we too, painfully and with many tears, endure division <...>, but we endure it because, for those who love the truth, nothing is preferable to God and hope in Him." (Ep. 262. 2 1.19-22 (976A))

May the Lord help all of us to think and act responsibly, honestly, and selflessly, doing that which is pleasing to Him and brings true benefit to His holy Church!

With pain and love in Christ,
the sincere well-wisher of Your Eminence

† Bishop Photii

1. See http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/R1a4009Syn412Rus.pdf 

2. Report by Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad on the issues of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and Old Believers, cited from Bishop Alexander (Mileant), "I believe that time and God's grace will heal the Russian Church from the wounds inflicted on her by the godless regime." (Epistle to the clergy and flock) — [http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/ep_vlalexander.html and https://www.synod.com/01newstucture/pagesen/news04/bishalextopastors.html

Russian source: https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/ch-life/official/photii_rocorsynod2007-07-14.htm#2b