Questions and Answers for Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan (1992)

 Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan

Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women, 1992

Answers to the Questions of the Parishioners of the Orthodox Parish in Summerville, South Carolina.

1. Are there any objections from the Synodal people (laity, priests, bishops) against involvement in Russia [that is, establishing parishes]?

Some of the laity naively believe that since Russia is "free," there are no reasons preventing unification with the Moscow Patriarchate. A few members of the clergy hold this same opinion (the most notable among them were suspended and, as a result, left our Church and joined the Autocephalous Church of America). All the bishops feel that they made the right decision by admitting into the hierarchy those who refuse to enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. The laity uncomfortable with our ecclesiological position are mostly those who have not taken the time to study the nature and actions of the Moscow Patriarchate and who have closed their ears to our hierarchical warnings over the past decades. It is likely that they place primary emphasis on nationalism rather than on what contributes to the well-being of the Church. It is impossible to provide even an approximate percentage of ROCOR members holding this opinion. I would estimate 5% of our parishioners in total.

2. Are all catacomb churches in favor of or supportive of the Synod’s presence in Russia? If not, why?

Not all catacomb communities have responded favorably to our initiatives. Their negative reaction is primarily caused by the fact that we did not agree to immediately recognize all of them as a legitimate church hierarchy. Many small groups that make up the Catacomb Church do not have hierarchs with (full) valid apostolic succession. We proposed to supplement their ordinations through cheirothesia, as we did for Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth and Metropolitan Epiphanios of Cyprus in the early 1970s. However, most groups perceived this as an insult to their life under persecution and the struggle they endured, and they preferred to continue their ministry as before, disregarding the deficiencies in their ordinations. Additionally, some object to our refusal to declare the Moscow Patriarchate devoid of grace.

3. Why was the 1984 [sic] anathema written?

The text of the anathema was composed at the Holy Transfiguration Monastery and submitted to Bishop Gregory [Grabbe] with a proposal to include it in the Rite of Orthodoxy. The text of the anathema was translated from English into Church Slavonic and delivered to the Hierarchical Synod for discussion.

4. Why was it later removed?

The anathema was not removed, although this fabrication is often propagated by enemies of ROCOR. All the bishops of our Church agree that, as defined by the anathema, ecumenism is a heresy, but not all were satisfied with the wording of the text composed by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Some bishops realized that the text of the anathema would not be officially accepted until their objections were addressed (for example, some felt that the style of the anathema was too convoluted and obscured its meaning). Bishop Gregory, who was then the Secretary of the Synod, decided that the text of the anathema had been accepted and published it in our Church journal. The result of this fait accompli was that a number of bishops refused to include the anathema in the Rite of Orthodoxy...

<...> In any case, the heresy of the "branch theory" is anathematized by our hierarchs. However, as with other anathemas, we do not engage in ostentatious displays of anathematizing before those to whom it may apply.

5. What are its practical application and effects?

As Archbishop Vitaly [Ustinov] of Montreal stated at the time when the anathema was first used, the purpose of this anathema, first and foremost, is to emphasize to our own flock that this false concept of the essence of the Church is a heresy and must be avoided at all costs. Regarding how it affects those who belong to other Orthodox Churches, he believes that they will be judged according to their attitude toward this anathema. The fundamental difference lies in how ROCOR views and applies this anathema compared to the more fanatical among the Greek Old Calendarists. We see the anathema as a means of calling the erring to the Holy Church by pointing out their errors, while the more extreme Greeks treat it as a mechanism for excluding others from the Church.

6. Was there any response from other jurisdictions to Metropolitan Philaret’s Sorrowful Epistle?

According to our information, no response or acknowledgment was received from the hierarchs to whom the epistle was addressed, although Alexander Schmemann of the OCA wrote what he considered to be a rebuttal to one of the epistles, which was published in the quarterly journal of St. Vladimir’s Seminary.

7. Is anything (inter-jurisdictional) permitted at various levels: for the laity, lower clergy, higher clergy?

The general principle remains in effect: communion with Orthodox groups involved in the ecumenical movement is not permitted. Of course, bishops may, in individual cases, apply the principle of economia if they believe it will benefit the Church or the people. Priests must not violate the general principle without the permission of a bishop. However, there are cases where priests act unilaterally and cause scandals. This in no way negates the general principle.

8. Why is there so little education on the issue of ecumenism? Will anything change in this regard?

There is no standard approach to educating the flock in ROCOR. Letters are sent to all parishes for priests to read to the laity. Articles are published in church periodicals. If ecumenism has not been particularly emphasized among the other heresies surrounding the Church in these sorrowful times, it is because we are focused on the lower clergy and laity, for whom this issue is not as pressing as it is for other Orthodox Churches infected with the poison of ecumenism. As for changing the ways and means of educating the flock, this would require significant effort on the part of church authorities. I must admit that I cannot foresee significant changes in this area.

9. Position regarding grace in the New Calendar Churches

When the New Calendar began to be introduced in the 1930s and <...>, ROCOR, although it actively and vocally opposed the innovation, did not break communion with the Churches that adopted the New Calendar. Here in America, in the 1950s, ROCOR maintained warm and cordial relations with the Antiochian Church (for example, Archbishop Vitaly [Maximenko] participated in the consecration of Metropolitan Antony [Bashir] of the Antiochian Church). We have never stated or implied that the adoption of the Western Calendar deprives any Church of grace. It is our conviction that while the New Calendar is a regrettable break with the Church of the past, it nevertheless does not pertain to core dogmas or Church theology, as it would in the case of heresy. Metropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastasy (Gribanovsky), both of whom were profound theologians, used their influence in the Eastern Churches to oppose the introduction of the New Calendar; otherwise, they would have recognized it as a heresy.

10. Is it possible to recognize that our people, belonging to the Synod, are allowed to receive Communion in New Calendar churches? We have heard this has occurred in Atlanta. Has the Russian Synod worldwide ceased concelebration with New Calendarists, or have New Calendarists stopped receiving Communion in the churches of the Synod?

The general principle is that our Church advises its members not to receive Communion in parishes of churches involved in the ecumenical movement, regardless of whether they use the Old or New Calendar. In individual cases, a bishop may, applying the principle of economia, allow his spiritual children to partake of Communion in such parishes, but such permission is given strictly on an individual basis. ROCOR did not immediately break Eucharistic communion with the churches that adopted the New Calendar, as noted in the answer to question 9. Today, we are in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate and the Church of Jerusalem. The Serbian Church, in response to our concerns, assured our bishops that, despite being a member of the World Council of Churches (WCC), its hierarchs firmly reject the "branch theory" of the Church and believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church of Christ, adding that their participation in the WCC is based on practical, political, and social matters. Our bishops take them at their word.

If the situation changes drastically for the worse, we will, of course, reassess our position. Here, we must emphasize that mere membership in the WCC is insufficient to brand someone as an ecumenist or to place a church outside the One Church of Christ—this is determined by what each individual says and does at WCC conferences. We have not established a specific policy regarding whether to permit or prohibit the sacraments for members of New Calendar churches. Each bishop independently decides how best to handle such cases. Furthermore, even in dioceses where the policy is clearly defined—such as denying Communion to New Calendarists—there are still instances of economia.

11. Are there any changes in the Synod's policy toward Moscow dissidents?

No. We continue to support church dissidents in their stand against the abuses in their political and social systems, as well as against the Moscow Patriarchate. We provide them with information that clarifies our position, hoping that they will adopt our way of thinking. Dissidents from the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, even when they verbally support the Synod, are not permitted to concelebrate with us.

12. What are the conditions necessary for achieving union with the Moscow Patriarchate?

ROCOR has set forth four conditions that must be met before negotiations for union can begin. We list them here, and the order of listing does not necessarily reflect the importance of each:

1. The Moscow Patriarchate must acknowledge that its statements, so often made over the past decades, about the absence of religious persecution under the Soviet regime, were blatant lies intended to conceal the true beastly nature of the communist state. As a demonstration of its sincerity in this acknowledgment, it must canonize all the new martyrs of the Bolshevik persecutions.

2. The Moscow Patriarchate must renounce and condemn the harmful policy of Sergianism as foreign and destructive to the Church.

3. The Moscow Patriarchate must withdraw from active participation in the ecumenical movement.

4. All hierarchs and priests of the Moscow Patriarchate who have allowed themselves to serve merely as pawns of the KGB, betraying the Holy Church and their flock for position and worldly power, must publicly repent, acknowledge their crimes, and, as a sign of their true repentance, withdraw from active participation in the governance of the Church.

When these conditions are accepted by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate <...>, whom we admit, then we will sit down and discuss how union can best be achieved.

13. Concelebrations and Ordinations

Our stance toward the Serbs corresponds to what is expressed in the answer to question 10. Suffice it to say that relations with the Serbian Church can be in a state of constant flux. Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, who received advanced theological education at the Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade, holds a high opinion of the Serbian Church. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to sever all relations with Serbian Bishop Lavrentije when the latter served as bishop in Germany and even accepted one or more Serbian parishes under his omophorion due to the flagrant uncanonical actions of that Serbian hierarch. Additionally, the new Serbian Patriarch Pavle recently participated in a meeting of the heads of autocephalous churches under the chairmanship of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, during which a joint resolution was adopted. This resolution contains a subtly veiled condemnation of ROCOR as well as the Greek and Romanian Old Calendarists. Further clarification on this matter is necessary.

14. Position regarding the Icon of the Trinity

ROCOR has not issued an official ruling on the permissibility or impermissibility of depicting God the Father, the First Person of the Holy Trinity. About ten years ago, a critical article by those opposed to such depictions was published in the unofficial section of the Church Life newspaper (in Russian). However, this reflected nothing more than the opinion of the editorial leadership at that time, rather than a decisive stance by the hierarchy as a whole. No hierarch of our Church has ever issued a ruling stating that the iconographic depiction of the First Person of the Trinity is necessary. On the contrary, there is a growing awareness among the clergy that such depictions are not in line with mainstream Orthodox theology. It is hoped that, over time, such icons will be removed, replaced, or reinterpreted so that the figure depicted with a white beard and white hair on such icons will be identified with the mystical image of Christ, the Ancient of Days, rather than with God the Father. This depiction has been accepted for centuries in the East and in the Russian Church, despite the opinions of the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the prohibitions of later councils. Overall, it is deemed unlikely that there will be an abandonment of this depiction in the near future.

15. With whom is the St. Herman Brotherhood now?

The St. Herman Brotherhood left ROCOR when canonical accusations were brought against its abbot, Fr. Herman (Podmoshensky), by members of his community and spiritual children, and when he refused to respond to these accusations. He came under the omophorion of Metropolitan Pangratios, <...> of questionable reputation. Bishop Pangratios has no connection with the Greek Old Calendarist churches.

16. Concelebrations with New Calendarists?

<...> Concelebrations with the clergy of Orthodox churches involved in ecumenism do not take place.

17. Position regarding various Old Calendarist jurisdictions

ROCOR was deeply disappointed by the failure of its attempts to bring peace and unity to the ongoing divisions among factions of the Greek Old Calendarist movement, and the fanaticism of some of these groups rendered its mediatory efforts futile. Consequently, there has been no official communion between our hierarchs and clergy since this decision was made in the late 1970s. Laity from Greek Old Calendarist jurisdictions are admitted to the chalice by us, but instances of concelebration, if they have occurred, are exceptions to the rule. ROCOR maintains close (though unofficial) ties with the hierarchs of Archbishop Chrysostom [Kiousis] of Athens. There has been no communion with the Matthewites since the last Metropolitan Callistos of Corinth left their jurisdiction due to their irreconcilable and provocative attitude toward us.

18. Why is ecumenical activity allowed for the clergy?

Our Church does not approve of participation in the ecumenical movement. However, there have been regrettable instances where individual priests, recklessly, became involved in situations that caused scandal. Since the clergy acted in these cases out of ignorance or misunderstanding of the significance of their actions, these matters were addressed privately by their bishops. Our clergy neither support nor accept the "branch theory" of the Church. There are no individuals among them whom the Fathers of the Church would consider heretics. It should be remembered that such violations of our general principle can occasionally occur within the Church without causing the loss of Her grace, especially if the bishops oppose ecumenical activities.

Synodal Seal
Signature of Bishop Hilarion

Russian source: https://slovo-archipastyria.narod.ru/index/0-4