The Boston Question – Moral or Ecclesiological?

 The Boston Question – Moral or Ecclesiological?

Subdeacon Vladimir Kirillov (ROCOR-A) | February 22, 2013

 

Despite my sincere desire to finally close the "Boston" topic, it is not yet possible to do so – through collective efforts, additional facts, circumstances, and testimonies come to light, which must be taken into consideration.

Nowadays, the name of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) is on the lips of many, and some even trust him more than Metropolitan Vitaly. Therefore, it is necessary to pay close attention to certain aspects of the activities of this eminent hierarch, who for many years stood at the helm of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In particular, it is worth examining, through the example of his Petition to the Council of Bishops, his stance on the so-called Boston case. This is all the more relevant because one of the commentators on my article ("Notes of a Layman on the Case of Former Priest Victor Melehov") made, as he wrote, "an important reminder that Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), who undoubtedly knew the Church canons and the practice of their application in Church history better than anyone else in the Diaspora, considered this 'defrocking' (of the Boston schismatics) unlawful (and his position was no secret)."

In connection with this statement, it will probably be interesting to familiarize oneself with Bishop Gregory’s Petition to the Council of Bishops, in which, it can be assumed, this issue will be addressed. It is possible that there are other statements by this hierarch on this topic, but for now, they remain a complete "secret" to me. Additionally, it is worth examining the destructive nature of the activities of the former priest V. Melehov within the ROCOR(V) [who is now with the "Russian True Orthodox Church (ROTC)].

At the same time, it must be noted that the frank and impartial discussion taking place in my Journal is primarily not about any particular individual, no matter how significant they may be, but about the historical path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which various church figures interpret differently, sometimes to the point of completely distorting it.

* * * *

Having read Bishop Gregory's (Grabbe) Petition to the Council of Bishops (presented below), it is difficult to resist commenting on it, at least to some extent, since this document differs greatly in spirit from what had previously come from the pen of this church writer.

If the first, introductory part, where His Grace Bishop Gregory reminds his fellow bishops of his role and the significance of the ROCOR, is impeccable (especially important is his reminder of the pastoral approach, based on the combination of truth and love, characteristic of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in resolving various issues), then the second part may easily perplex those who are familiar with the essence of the Boston case being presented.

First of all, Bishop Gregory, who was well-acquainted (perhaps better than anyone) with the affairs of the Boston monastery, does not personally deny the moral accusations brought against its abbot, Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), but states that the Boston flock considers the accusations against him unjust and places greater trust in him (Fr. Panteleimon) than in the Higher Church Authority.

But after all, the investigation was conducted precisely for this purpose by a special Synodal commission, with the participation of Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles and Bishop Alypy of Cleveland (i.e., witnesses were summoned, witness testimonies were read, etc.), to determine whether the accusations made were just or unjust. And this investigation took place over the course of many months.

Moreover, it must be noted that the ROCOR Synod did not begin dealing with the Boston case on its own initiative. It was not sudden, nor was it due to any malicious intent that it began to "attack" the poor Archimandrite Panteleimon. Long before the open phase of the scandal, numerous complaints began to arrive at the Synod of Bishops, and the Synod was simply forced to take up this unpleasant matter in every respect. And it was not the Synod that initiated this "uproar" and scandal, but Fr. Panteleimon himself, through his unchristian behavior (involving his flock by making accusations against the ROCOR).

It turns out that His Grace Bishop Gregory reproaches the Synod for even attempting to untangle the Boston knot and for having the imprudence to arrive at sad conclusions, now calling upon it for leniency and mercy—toward those who are unrepentant and unwilling to acknowledge their guilt, despite the irrefutable testimonies of the victims. Moreover, he suggests seeking ways to pacify the dissatisfied Greek flock, perhaps through a public apology from the representatives of the Synod of Bishops to the abbot of the Transfiguration Monastery, who has "suffered" from the "punitive measures."

Bishop Gregory emphasizes the "uproar" in his Petition, but was it the Synod Abroad that caused the uproar?

Does His Grace not know who truly caused the public uproar and mobilized the flock to oppose Church authority? Who boldly refused to appear before the Church court and began making noise to the whole world about the "sins" and "departures" of the ROCOR, after which they demonstratively and with great fanfare left the Church Abroad? Of course, His Grace Gregory knows all of this perfectly well. Moreover, this matter lasted many months, and ample time was given for repentance.

If the Greeks (along with two "Russians," including the former priest V. Melehov) had spoken out against the "departure" of the Church Abroad before the Synod, through Bishops Anthony and Alypy, began their investigation, and if this protest had been just and well-founded, then one could speak of their confession of faith and of the "uproar" that Church authority would have raised as an unjust countermeasure. Otherwise, such "confession of faith" is merely a form, a beautiful wrapper, a way to use accusations to evade responsibility for committed moral transgressions.

And did the former priest Victor Melehov not know about the moral accusations brought against Fr. Panteleimon?

He knew perfectly well, just like everyone else, and this is evident not only from the fact that all materials were published in the Church press but also from the text of the Petition itself: “The resolution on the matter of Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac is considered unjust by the overwhelming majority of our flock, especially the Greek flock in the Boston area” (i.e., everyone knew about the moral accusations). However, there is a significant exaggeration in this phrase regarding the "overwhelming majority of our flock." After all, no statistical calculations were conducted, but it is clear that the majority of the Greek flock, influenced by "elder" Panteleimon, knew about the accusations but considered them unjust. And, of course, they trusted their Greek false elder more than the Synod of Bishops. But this same Greek "elder" was also trusted more than their Russian bishops by Russian priests (Frs. Melehov and [Spyridon] Schneider). Bishop Gregory confirms this as well: “The same attitude is shared by the entire clergy of this area (about 10 people),” which included the "Russian" clergy. However, recalling their attitude toward this "blue" scandal now (not participation in the immoral acts of the "elder" and his brethren, but their covering up and tacit justification) is understandably uncomfortable—they find it much more appealing to be seen as "confessors."

Another noteworthy aspect here is the pragmatism of Bishop Gregory.

It is as if he places on one side of the scales the moral accusations (a mortal, sodomite sin, which, in his opinion, should be approached quietly and wisely, with the utmost leniency and love, citing Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy as examples (?!) of such an approach). On the other side, he places the influence and significance of this monastery—its power, that is, the "million-dollar property" of the monastery (as he misrepresents it, accumulated "out of nothing"—which is untrue, as those interested can read in the Notes to my article "And Who Are the Judges?"), its numerous flock, 10–15 Greek parishes, and so on.

And he poses an interesting, yet strange question for an archpastor: when making a decision on this Boston case, was the Synod of Bishops aware of these details, that is, the "million-dollar property" of the "elder" and his strong influence?

It is well known that this Greek "elder" was both wealthy and generous with gifts, as was the Greek diaspora, which readily donated to and supported him.

But what of it? Should one turn a blind eye to the moral transgressions of a wealthy Greek monk for the sake of profit? Is this what Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy taught?

What is Bishop Gregory advocating for? Orthodoxy or a compromise with conscience for the sake of material benefit and an illusory advantage for the Greek flock? And when is he proposing this? At a time when the case has become widely publicized, and everyone is aware of it? Is the Bishop not aware that in the current situation, there are only two possible paths: either the accused (Fr. Panteleimon) repents, or the accuser (the Synod) does? And here, in effect, Bishop Gregory is proposing the latter—namely, that the Council of Bishops "consider urgent measures to treat the grave illness that has arisen for them, so that they (the Greeks—ed. V.K.) feel that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not a cruel stepmother but a loving mother."

Thus, His Grace Bishop Gregory, perhaps unwittingly, openly reveals his moral stance by proposing that the Synod backtrack—burying a case that became widely known thanks to the "propaganda machine" of the wealthy Greek (see my article "And Who Are the Judges?"). This, even though Fr. Panteleimon, in defiance of the Synod, publicly accused the Church Abroad of heresy and apostasy—allegations that supposedly led him, shortly thereafter, to leave with his "sensitive" and "scandalized" flock, disillusioned by the Synodal decision, for the non-canonical Old Calendarist Greeks. Later, he established, on the foundation of the deposed Archbishop Auxentios, who had been removed for numerous violations, his own "Holy" parasynagogue in North America (HOCNA), naturally backed by his vast wealth, as is customary in those circles.

Without a doubt, this entire scandal could have been resolved differently, with the greatest possible economia in the spirit of the loving and gracious Metropolitan Anthony, but only under one indispensable condition—namely, the timely repentance of those guilty of their sins. However, the issue is that the proud Fr. Panteleimon did not repent of anything at the time—neither he nor his clergy, including Frs. Melehov and Schneider. Even now, these two "Russians" continue to cloak their, albeit unwitting, complicity in the unrighteous deeds of the schism-inciter Fr. Panteleimon under the guise of "confession of faith."

* * * *

Interestingly, a few months ago, there was a report that the terminally ill Fr. Panteleimon had supposedly repented of his involvement in a "demonic cult," which, along with other disorders, caused a scandal within his "holy" group. It is also known that Fr. S. Schneider ended his "confession of faith" within the Moscow Patriarchate (ROCOR-MP), while the former priest V. Melehov continues to persistently propagate his "confession of faith" (that is, the "ultra-correct," destructive poison) further across jurisdictions.

However, this "confession of faith" is not actually the creation of this former priest but is borrowed from the "ultra-correct" Greek "elder," who essentially espouses a variant of Matthewite ecclesiology, with its concept of "automatic loss of grace," the proud condemnation of all local Churches, and the self-presentation as a "judge of the universe." It goes without saying that such a sectarian stance is the antithesis of the moderate position of Greek Metropolitan Cyprian, Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), a disciple of St. John (Maximovitch), St. John himself, as well as, for example, Bishop Anthony of Geneva, among others.

This moderate, "royal" position is also affirmed as being that of the Church Abroad, as stated by its Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, at the Council of Bishops in 1993: "Archbishop Laurus recounts the contents of a letter from some unknown individual sent by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva. It is an apology for adhering to the royal path in ecclesiastical matters... The Chairman states that we are, in fact, adhering to such a path. We do not concelebrate with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but neither do we claim that his Church is without grace" (Protocol No. 4, April 24/May 7, 1993).

Could this, too, be considered a heresy of the "sick and healthy members of the Church in the realm of 'proper understanding of faith,'" for which Metropolitan Cyprian is reproached—now proclaimed by Metropolitan Vitaly, who did not consider the Patriarchate of Constantinople to be without grace despite its involvement in ecumenism? And for the rest of the Council of Bishops, this was a matter of course.

How can an ecumenical Church have grace-filled Sacraments? – asks the "zealous without knowledge," and no positive answer can satisfy them. I fear this is truly an insoluble paradox for the "ultra-correct" rationalists, for whom it is exceedingly difficult to explain the essence of the matter. To them, everything is either black or white. What is striking is their confidence that they have been given (by whom, exactly?) the authority to decide who has grace and who does not. They have appropriated the right to judge in an area that belongs to God alone, thereby making themselves, in some measure, equal to Him. Naturally, they do not need a corresponding Council with the authority to judge; they consider themselves above it. Of course, it is easier for them to label you a heretic than to delve into this significant issue.

In any case, it must be understood that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has never professed the heretical doctrine of "automatic loss of grace" and held a clear understanding of its own "local anathema" against ecumenism in 1983. It did not, based on this anathema, condemn local Churches as being without grace but believed that such important and complex issues require a Council of universal significance. Metropolitan Cyprian held this view as well.

This is why the former priest V. Melehov insisted so strongly on condemning Cyprian’s ecclesiology during his "return" to ROCOR in November 2001, as it contradicted his entire rational, black-and-white "confession of faith" (thus, in one stroke, he was also condemning the traditional position of ROCOR). This uncompromising condition for his "return" to his alma mater provoked the issuance of the well-known and highly controversial decision of the ROCiE Synod on October 26/November 8, 2001, which immediately triggered a series of protests (3), as testified in an explanatory letter by Fr. Spiridon Schneider.

Here is an excerpt from this Synod decision, imposed by the former priest Melehov: "In accordance with the resolution of the ROCOR Council of Bishops of 1974, regarding the cessation of the unconsidered Eucharistic communion established by the ROCOR Council in 1994 with the Synod in Resistance under the Chairmanship of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, due to his unorthodox teaching on the Church (concerning the sick and healthy members of the Church in the area of 'proper understanding of faith') and his recognition of the Sacraments of the new calendarists as valid."

It goes without saying that such an official interpretation by the "young" ROCOR Synod regarding the Sacraments of local Churches that transitioned to the new calendar (i.e., effectively recognizing them as graceless) is a novelty in the Church Abroad—a practice unprecedented and unparalleled in ROCOR history, characteristic only of the Matthewites and other extremist groups like the Bostonians. Moreover, this imposed innovation was hypocritically and falsely presented by the Melehov group as a desire to "correct the course of errors introduced into ROCOR through the gradual departure from the traditional confession of the Church Abroad by hierarchs who had deviated" (Protocols of the Meeting of Bishops and Clergy of the USA and Canada, December 15/28 – 16/29, 2001). In reality, the opposite was true: there was a cunning and not immediately noticeable substitution of the "traditional confession of the Church Abroad" with something entirely different and not at all reflective of ROCOR's ethos.

It is unfortunate that those responsible for making the decision at the time failed to see this... and allowed themselves to be drawn into an adventure. Moreover, there were some who sympathized with the teachings of the former priest V. Melehov, who in their eyes transformed overnight from a defrocked cleric into a "confessor." In any case, Fr. Nikita Orlov (later the former Bishop Anthony), who subsequently orchestrated an "ultra-correct" schism with the former Bishop V. Pivovarov, clearly adhered overall to Melehov’s views. But was he the only one? Unfortunately, subsequent events showed that he was not.

And if one were to follow the Pharisaic logic of these "correctors," then Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy would have to be labeled "hierarchs who deviated," as would St. Philaret, and, of course, St. John (Maximovitch), along with Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, who frequently referenced him, and, sadly, even Metropolitan Vitaly himself. At the same time, the entire glorious path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad would have to be condemned. Meanwhile, the former priest Victor Melehov would be rehabilitated, transforming from a hardened schismatic, deprived of his rank, into a "confessor."

But why did ROCOR fail to establish relations with either the Matthewites or the Auxentios faction (the precursors of the Chrysostomites)? The primary reason is that they adhered to ecclesiological positions that were different from, if not outright opposed to, one another. Only with the moderate followers of Metropolitan Cyprian did ROCOR's positions essentially align (as was officially confirmed by the 1994 ROCOR Council of Bishops), which facilitated the establishment of full Eucharistic and prayerful communion between the two Churches. This communion would likely have continued to this day if the majority of ROCOR had not departed from its "royal" path of true Orthodoxy (Fr. Seraphim Rose).

The reference to the "resolution of the 1974 ROCOR Council of Bishops" is not particularly convincing. First, the decision was made in 1975, and for the following reason: due to the lawlessness perpetrated by Archbishop Auxentios, which caused even his fellow bishops to groan. These included "blue" scandals (for those familiar, I remind you of the disappearance of a panagia under delicate circumstances), unauthorized ordinations ("they baked bishops like pies," in the words of Metropolitan Vitaly), and, as a result, endless unions and divisions ("dances" with Synods), crude intrusions into ROCOR’s territory (e.g., the case of John Rocha), and so on (see https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/35459.html).

Secondly, let us not forget the infamously notorious encyclical of Archbishop Auxentios from 1974, declaring the Sacraments of the Church of Greece to be without grace—a position with which the Church Abroad could not possibly agree. Lastly, Metropolitan Cyprian had no direct relation to this ROCOR decision, as in 1975 he was quietly residing in his monastery as its abbot. Only in 1979 did he become a bishop within the Synod of Metropolitan Kallistos, who had separated from Archbishop Auxentios. Afterward, their first action was to travel to the ROCOR Synod to explain what had transpired and to request the restoration of relations with ROCOR, which had been disrupted due to the lawless acts of Archbishop Auxentios (as documented in a Synodal resolution). Therefore, to now speak of the unification of Old Calendarist Greeks who hold opposing ecclesiological positions as a condition for ROCOR's union with them is merely an excuse and an unwillingness to engage with the affairs of another Church or seek unity with Orthodox brethren. Let us also not forget that the Greek scandals were a consequence of ROCOR's interference in the affairs of another local Church, and thus dismissing them now without further consideration appears neither fair nor appropriate.

Thus, in essence, with this act of rejecting its own tradition (the Statement of the ROCiE Synod), the mechanism of self-destruction (or one of the mechanisms) was initially embedded in the resisting apostasy faction of ROCOR. The subsequent "Orlov," "Pivovarov," "Damascene," and other "Vitalyite" "fragments" (positioning themselves as true Churches) were a natural consequence of the introduction into ROCOR of a principle alien to it: "truth without love." Truth combined with love does not imply total and demonstrative separation from everyone (a prideful isolation in one’s imagined righteousness). One must distinguish "zeal for God" from "zeal without knowledge." It is impossible to successfully build something lasting on negation or hatred of something (even if that something is truly wrong and worthy of critique, as one priest noted), and even less so on a rejection of one’s own history and direct path. As Bishop Gregory aptly wrote in one place, "The Church is not governed by zigzags." If, in church-building, denial (cutting the very branch one is sitting on) is laid as the foundation instead of a positive basis, it is akin to building on rotten ground. This inevitably leads to destruction—which has already happened, as there will always be those who are "more true" and "more zealous," for unrestrained zeal knows no bounds. And this is not where one should begin…

As stated in the Protocols of the Meeting of Bishops and Clergy of the USA and Canada, December 28–29, 2001, "Metropolitan Vitaly, together with faithful hierarchs, issued Statement No. 7/01/M on October 26 / November 8, 2001, which reaffirms the anathema against the heresy of ecumenism from 1983, condemns the Moscow Patriarchate, and terminates all relations with the Serbian Patriarchate and the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili" (source: http://www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com/russian%20site/rusmansonville1.html).

One might ask: how many times can the anathema against ecumenism be reaffirmed? How many times can the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) be condemned? The anathema was reaffirmed conciliarily not long before these events in 1998, and Metropolitan Vitaly had not renounced it over the last three years. The actions of the MP had been repeatedly condemned by the Metropolitan in various statements, such as the Extraordinary Declaration of 2001. As for relations with the Serbs, they were already de facto nonexistent (see Metropolitan Vitaly’s Circular Letter of 2000 and his withdrawal of his signature from a letter to the Serbian Patriarch).

But the most significant and new element, the reason why, as they say, the former priest V. Melehov initiated "all this commotion," is the ecclesiological position of Metropolitan Cyprian's Synod.

For Melehov’s group (and for all "ultra-correct" factions of various kinds), this ecclesiological issue is the most crucial, the key point. Yet, it is precisely here that the fundamental difference lies between the position of the Church Abroad and that of the Matthewites or the Bostonians, including the former priest V. Melehov.

The Church Abroad has never, under any First Hierarch, taught that grace has departed from the local Churches (even those using the new calendar, or those whose hierarchs participate in the WCC). It has always maintained that such a question requires a competent Council to resolve. By contrast, extremist Greeks (and their Russian followers) believe that everything happens "automatically," and it is sufficient for them to recognize it as such. ROCOR has long and consistently condemned the heresy of ecumenism but has never passed judgment on the local Churches whose hierarchs are involved in the ecumenical movement. The Church Abroad has not supported the transition to the new calendar, but it has never condemned new-calendar Churches as graceless. And in this lies the principal distinction between the Church and these groups.

The Church Abroad communicated, when necessary, with the Patriarch of Jerusalem (for instance, there is a letter from Metropolitan Vitaly to the Patriarch of Jerusalem), with the Serbs (at least, relations were not severed), with the Old Calendarist Romanians and Bulgarians, and later with the Greeks (the Synod in Resistance—the second-largest Old Calendarist group in Greece, with parishes in America, Australia, Sweden, Africa, and so on). Moreover, it did not officially or demonstratively sever relations with other Churches, though communication, for understandable reasons, was reduced to "virtually nothing," and so forth. In the episcopal consecration of Metropolitan Philaret in Australia, the Greek new-calendar Bishop Dionysius participated as an equal—what further evidence is needed? This First Hierarch exchanged congratulatory correspondence with hierarchs of new-calendar Churches, and even the Roman Pope sent him Christmas greetings (oh, the horror!). This information was published in the press of the Church Abroad, and yet no one accused St. Philaret the Confessor of heresy or apostasy—not even the former priest V. Melehov.

In turn, with whom does a sect commune? With itself? Does it imply that everyone else has fallen away and only it (in the form of tiny fragments) remains? And where, then, is the Universal Catholic Church? Could it truly exist solely as a self-enclosed, self-sufficient group, ready to splinter further and fundamentally unwilling to seek unity with anyone?

Has the Universal Church already been overcome by the gates of hell?

Never—it simply needs to be recognized, while a sect that professes the heresy of "gracelessness," or a group gradually transforming into a sect, built on the denial of something (especially its historical path), lacks the grace-filled resources for its development. And here, I am not revealing anything new.

Some believe that only ecumenism—a violation of the dogma of the Church, a blurring of its boundaries, and thus a heresy—is dangerous. However, no less perilous is "zeal without knowledge"—"zealotry," a kind of ecclesiastical fanaticism. Under the guise of defending the purity of Orthodoxy, it narrows the Church's boundaries to the size of its own microscopic faction (a "sect of gracelessness"), arbitrarily and "automatically" relegating all other Orthodox Christians to the category of those who have fallen away. This, too, is a heresy against the dogma of the Church. "The greatest evil," said St. Philaret the Confessor, echoing the words of the Holy Fathers, "is the desire to eradicate all evil." Many have fallen prey to this "excessive zeal" ("ultra-correctness") and, unfortunately, continue to do so to this day. On this matter, Fr. Seraphim (Rose) wrote: "Bostonian Orthodoxy is nothing more than the right-wing of 'Parisian Orthodoxy' (referring to the St. Sergius Institute in Paris—ed. V.K.)—reformed, 'correct,' born of human logic, outside the patristic tradition. It is a grave temptation of our time."

And now, through the efforts of the former priest V. Melehov, "this grave temptation of our time"—"Bostonian Orthodoxy"—has officially penetrated ROCOR(V), through the adoption of several church documents, including the Resolution of the Pastoral Conference of December 16/29, 2001. This resolution is based on the well-known 1994 report by Bishop Gregory, which itself embodies the same "Bostonian Orthodoxy." It is no coincidence that this report was recently included by the former priest V. Melehov in his article directed against the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian.

But why does this proponent of Matthewite teaching so fervently attack the position of Metropolitan Cyprian, absurdly labeling it "crypto-ecumenism" (a term all the "zealots" repeat in unison)? It is because this teaching is a response to the delusional Matthewite error (including its Bostonian modification) and, in essence, refutes it. This, as they say, is where "the crux of the matter lies."

The word "ecumenism" is now frequently used, creating the impression that it has been intentionally turned into a label that can be applied to anything and anyone. However, this heresy has a specific meaning, particularly in relation to the 1983 anathema of the Church Abroad.

What was anathematized by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?

The Anglican-Protestant "branch theory," according to which the true (as understood by heretics) Church of Christ is composed of all Christian denominations. In this view, the Orthodox Church is not the one true Church but merely one among many. Additionally, those who teach that the sacraments of non-Orthodox, heretics (Protestants, Roman Catholics, Monophysites, etc.) are sufficient for salvation (i.e., those who do not distinguish between the "true priesthood and Sacraments of the Church and those of heretics") and those Orthodox who maintain communion with heretics (i.e., those who accept the "branch theory") fall under the scope of this anathema.

What a rich—or rather, distorted and deformed—imagination one must have to believe that the "moderately ecumenist" ROCOR and the "crypto-ecumenist" Synod in Resistance fall under this anathema. Both of these Churches have never, anywhere, recognized the "branch theory" as truth and have never taught that the sacraments of heretics are sufficient for salvation. On the contrary, they have always held that the Sacraments are performed only within the Orthodox, the one true Church. As far as I know, they have not entered into communion with anyone who acknowledges the "branch theory," whether within the Orthodox tradition or among non-Orthodox. Furthermore, this does not mean that every member of a given local Church (or anyone belonging to a new-calendarist or ecumenist church organization) "automatically" falls under the Church Abroad's anathema. Only those who profess this "branch theory" or consider the sacraments of non-Orthodox sufficient for salvation are subject to it—and even then, they are cut off invisibly by God's judgment from the Body of Christ, as they have not yet been brought to the visible Judgment of the Church.

But who today truly professes this "branch theory"?

It is difficult to say offhand. This is a matter for investigation by a competent court. In any case, even the Moscow Patriarchate has officially renounced this "theory" and recognizes only the Orthodox Church as true (I won’t delve here into their dubious theory of "residual grace" among the non-Orthodox, as there is neither time nor space for that). As for their participation in WCC gatherings, Moscow’s representatives claim they are there to confess Orthodoxy and do not engage in prayers with heretics, merely standing as witnesses. So, go and verify that if you can…

Nowadays, some "excessively zealous" individuals are prone to label anyone who does not, like them, declare all official Churches graceless as an ecumenist (apparently not understanding what the term actually means). They likely also do not realize that by doing so, they are pleasing the real, committed ecumenists, who rejoice when divided Orthodox Christians, instead of creating a united anti-ecumenical front, tear each other apart.

In this sense, using the words of the anathema—“and to those who have communion with these heretics, or assist them, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism, imagining it to be brotherly love and the unity of divided Christians: Anathema”—to condemn the pre-schism ROCOR, as Bishop Gregory has done, as well as the Synod in Resistance (who have done more than anyone else to denounce ecumenism), seems to me, to put it mildly, a great stretch, if not outright slander. This is what the Russians call “casting a shadow on the fence.” It is utterly unreasonable to label as "ecumenists" (or even "crypto-ecumenists") those who oppose this pan-heresy but do not consider local Churches, in which some hierarchs participate in this movement, to have fallen away from Orthodoxy solely on that basis. A local Church is not composed solely of hierarchs who have deviated (whose percentage is very small compared to the total number of believers) but of a multitude of people who not only do not participate in ecumenism but, in most cases, are largely unaware of it. Moreover, there are many within these Churches who actively resist the heresy. I do not deny that there is active apostasy taking place there, but only the Lord knows when everything will ultimately decay (when the organism will be infected and die). Apostasy is a process. For example, it is said of the Roman Catholics that this process lasted for three hundred years in their case.

Ecumenism, in a broad sense, is no longer merely the heresy defined by the Church Abroad’s anathema (which true ecumenists have learned to bypass successfully). It is a diverse, multifaceted, and complex phenomenon—a whole front of apostasy—that requires conciliar reflection and definition. Simplifying it into a black-and-white graphic image to frighten everyone and indiscriminately attaching "scary labels" to everything and everyone is simply unreasonable.

Ecumenism, like a multi-headed hydra, does not remain stationary (at the position of classical ecumenism, such as at the beginning of the 20th century or the version of Constantinople’s Patriarch Athenagoras). It is constantly in motion, always "searching": one head hides, two others appear, and so on. This cunning hydra must be monitored with theological precision—a level that not all critics possess.

The Synod in Resistance, carefully studying this destructive phenomenon of our times, is engaged in much more serious work than those who "stick labels" and insult their fellow Orthodox Christians. At the very least, Cyprianite theologians do not publicly write the kind of "ultra-correct" nonsense that is written about them. For example, such claims can be found in the articles of the former priest V. Melehov, who absorbed them from his Greek "elder" and Bishop Gregory in the latter period of his life. The latter’s article on this topic differs significantly from what this ideologist of ROCOR wrote earlier. Similarly, this "Bostonian ultra-correct" spirit permeates other documents as well.

Thus, "In the example of our Greeks (wrote Fr. Seraphim Rose, referring to the Bostonians—ed. V.K.), we observe a classic case of spiritual delusion, into which they have fallen due to vanity and self-conceit. The result of all this will be tragic, and many will fall into this pit because they trust Fr. Panteleimon (now we can add, and his disciple, the former priest Victor Melehov) more than God" (http://www.listok.com/raznoe8.htm).

So, where exactly (into what pit of delusion) was the former priest V. Melehov, along with his pro-Bostonian group, attempting to push ROCOR under the omophorion of Metropolitan Vitaly, while striving to "correct the course of errors" in the Church Abroad?

It is better not to dwell on this. As the Russian proverb says, "Let a goat into the garden..."

And there is no need to attempt to drag Elder Metropolitan Vitaly into this unpleasant "Melehov story" (and place all the blame on him) by claiming that he allegedly endorsed and signed documents that, as shown above, represent a genuine departure from the historical path of ROCOR, or that he himself supposedly authored this Synodal decree of the ROCiE. This false assertion is refuted by the testimony of Fr. Spyridon Schneider.

What can be said in response to this?

Firstly, it is well known what advanced age Metropolitan Vitaly was in at that time and the state and circumstances he was in, especially when he was influenced for two and a half hours by a group of clergy who were of one mind (see Fr. S. Schneider's letter for additional context).

But that is not the main issue. The main point is that the documents of the ROCiE bearing his signature directly contradict everything this First Hierarch of the Church Abroad had said and written for many years, even decades, regarding the local new-calendar Churches, some of whose hierarchs participate in the ecumenical movement. And he always said the same thing (paraphrasing his words): We do not want to be their judges; we will not commit this madness (of condemnation). (I have published these statements of his numerous times already, and if necessary, I can publish them again, including in facsimile form.)

Now, compared to this genuine calamity, the question of how the former priest Melehov was received into ROCOR(V)—under what rite or, perhaps, without any rite at all, whether he is a priest or defrocked—becomes relatively less important. The main issue is that he planted under ROCOR(V) the Boston mine of "Elder" Panteleimon, which has not yet been defused, as the aforementioned documents of the ROCiE have not been annulled. They remain on the "old" official website and, moreover, were reaffirmed in 2008 (4).

Therefore, I call for the unification of the fragmented parts of ROCOR while there is still opportunity and time, thereby de facto correcting its position (that is, simultaneously renouncing through this act its actual errors and various misguided decisions). In this case, each will contribute their own to the common treasury: some will bring continuity with Metropolitan Vitaly, others spiritual continuity with the Church Abroad, and still others something unique to them. For this unification is pleasing to God, while division serves the devil. "Divide and conquer"—this is his principle. "Nothing so provokes the wrath of God as divisions in the Church," taught St. John Chrysostom.

So why provoke God’s wrath?

We must ultimately choose: either we unite with moderate Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and others who follow the "royal" path (the one the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has always followed), or with the "zealous without knowledge"—sectarians or semi-sectarians.

Of course, there is another path: to slowly fade into irrelevance in our "proud isolation" and perish along with our errors, while the reasonable will move forward on their own path.

But that, perhaps, is all—there are no other paths, in my opinion. A symptom of purification from the "Bostonian" infection (healing) will be the desire for unity, not stagnation in self-isolation and imagined righteousness (self-satisfaction), which will lead to nothing good for such "confessors."

I am not calling for so-called "Orthodox ecumenism," as some "ultra-correct" clever individuals may falsely portray it, but for unity—a united Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Otherwise, one would have to consider even the ever-blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) an "Orthodox ecumenist," along with his Synod, which did everything, including making various compromises, to achieve the unity they desired within the Church Abroad, which had been divided by the actions of Metropolitans Evlogy and Platon. In 1936, an agreement was even reached between them, reflected in the Provisional Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, approved by the General Council of Bishops, but later annulled through the efforts of opponents of church unity. Nevertheless, the Church Abroad continued to call for this unity even afterward.

Thus, the longstanding scandal surrounding the Boston monastery, spanning many years, is not only a moral issue but, as the former priest V. Melehov himself demonstrated through his "ultra-correct" actions, also an ecclesiological one. Moreover, it is not merely a matter of ROCOR’s history but remains highly relevant and pressing today.

The mentor and teacher of the former priest V. Melehov, the Boston "elder" Panteleimon, who aspired to shadowy spiritual leadership over the entire Church Abroad, sought to steer its course in the direction he deemed appropriate (i.e., into a spiritual pit). All the "zealots" of the Church Abroad, scattered here and there, were connected with him in one way or another—even the "zealots" living in France. This was an entire "ultra-correct" front of "gracelessness" adherents, united under the authority of the "elder"-zealot Fr. Panteleimon and his quasi-Matthewite ecclesiology. Overseeing the Transfiguration Monastery was none other than Bishop Gregory, who now, in his Petition, defends the "poor" Greeks for whom, it seems, the Church Abroad has allegedly become a "stepmother."

The ever-memorable Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), a disciple of St. John, in his letters from the 1970s, discerned the spiritual essence of the harmful and corrupting Bostonian "confession of faith." He long ago predicted that this deluded group ("a church within the Church") would end its path in the Church Abroad with a schism: "In time, the 'ultra-correct' will increase their influence and orchestrate a great schism, a sort of coup within the Church. However, it will not succeed, and the rebels will end up as a small sect, entrenched in their dogmas (read heresies—ed. V.K.)." And so it happened.

Why, then, should we continue to partake in these heresies to this day and move toward becoming a sect?

But where was the eminent ideologist of ROCOR, Bishop Gregory, looking?

The Boston monastery, as a breeding ground for a sectarian (heretical) spirit throughout the Church, was Bishop Gregory's creation, and he bore responsibility for it.

St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was absolutely right when he taught that one should not rely unquestioningly on authorities, even those wearing cassocks, klobuks, or even panagias. In our time of spiritual impoverishment and the absence of grace-filled guides, the gifts of discernment and spiritual discernment are especially necessary. These can only be obtained through fervent prayer and cannot be acquired while indulging in coarse carnal sins—starting with drunkenness, which has become commonplace even among hierarchs. Without these gifts, one can stray far from the ultimate goal: one’s salvation. I write this as someone who personally suffered from excessive trust in the authority of the same Bishop Gregory (for instance, in analyzing the position of Metropolitan Cyprian).

In short, as the saying goes, "Even an old hand can make a mistake."

* * * *

And what about the moral aspect?

Alas, here too, unfortunately, not everything is as it should be…

It is known from an official Synodal resolution (Church Life, No. 1–2, 1987) that several years before the events described (still under Metropolitan Philaret), Protopresbyter George Grabbe was tasked with investigating a complaint by the Boston schemamonk Athanasius about the "improper behavior" of the "elder." However, "nothing definite was discovered." Later, there was another complaint of a similar nature from another monk, Hieromonk Gregory. "At the instruction of Metropolitan Philaret, His Grace Bishop Gregory apparently spoke with Archimandrite Panteleimon, who stated that… they were slandering him to harm the monastery." And again, nothing came of it. Complaints continued, the victims were perplexed by the inaction of the Church authorities (specifically Bishop Gregory), and eventually, under the new Metropolitan, a covert commission was appointed to investigate the matter.

Thus, Bishop Gregory cannot justify himself by claiming ignorance of the "elder's" sinful inclinations; rather, he can be accused of gullibility or of deliberately concealing another's sins.

And now he turns to the Council, speaking of "urgent measures to treat the grave illness that has arisen" and reminding his fellow bishops of their responsibility before God. Of course, all of this strange behavior could be attributed to old age and illness, but still…

Why did he himself not treat the "Greek illness" in a timely manner and without unnecessary publicity when he was the first to be entrusted with the investigation (which, as they say, he "shelved," shielding the "elder"), and why is he now shifting the blame "from a sick head to a healthy one" (i.e., from himself to the Synod)?

Could it really be that, after many years of interaction with the monastery, Bishop Gregory noticed nothing suspicious in the behavior of the Greek "zealots of Orthodoxy"? Strange… or was he, once again, displaying tolerance and indulgence? Or perhaps, for him, the primary concern was preserving the "million-dollar property" and supporting the "zealots," letting them amuse themselves as they pleased, as long as they and their loyal flock remained within the ecclesiastical enclosure of the Church Abroad?

I don’t know—God is his judge—but it would be difficult to regard him as a naive man.

Moreover, there is a story that the Boston Greeks, in 1986 (i.e., after his retirement), even offered Bishop Gregory the leadership of their group that was leaving ROCOR. They awaited his decision, but fortunately, at that time, he did not dare to accept the offer.

As the spiritually wise Bishop Anthony of Geneva wrote with complete clarity to Metropolitan Vitaly on January 2, 1987: "It was not we who bestowed favor upon the Greeks who came to us (Fr. Panteleimon and his brethren—ed. V.K.), nor did we find in them obedient flock members. They wanted to rule our Church and lead us along their path. And we, without even realizing it, became their slaves, fearing their criticism: 'What will the Greeks say!?' The Greeks have always been proud and self-assured, looking down on the Slavic Churches with disdain. And now they have thanked us accordingly."

And from another letter, dated December 12, 1986, to the same recipient: "I learned that Panteleimon fled to Akakios. For us, it is evident that this is for the better. Perhaps this will resolve the issue of our captivity to the Greek Old Calendarists. Enough of constantly looking to them and pondering what we can or cannot do. We are part of the Russian Church, and our path is not with the Greeks."

Christ the Savior did not leave us a Dogmatics or laws about the calendar. He left us only one condition for being worthy to call ourselves His disciples: "Love one another!" And when we place the calendar at the forefront and quarrel over it, we swallow the camel and strain out the gnat. It is time to honestly and openly admit that the issue is not the calendar but our behavior. Apparently, those who preserve the old calendar are allowed to be pederasts, hate their neighbors, and tear the Church apart.

We are called, dear Vladyka, to rightly proclaim the word of Christ's TRUTH. Instead, we have ended up in an Old Calendarist sect, floundering in its web, unable to find a way out. It is time to openly and firmly tell the Greeks: stop your disgraceful behavior, mutual condemnations, hostility, and hatred among brothers. By your behavior, you shame the Church and blasphemously call yourselves true Orthodox Christians.

Dear Vladyka, we pray that the Lord will help you endure yet another storm, a storm raised by the self-satisfied Pharisees of our time, who imagine themselves to be righteous."

How important and relevant are these pointed words of Archbishop Anthony, which bear repeating without shame: "It is time to honestly and openly admit that the issue is not the calendar but our behavior. Apparently, those who preserve the old calendar are allowed to be pederasts, hate their neighbors, and tear the Church apart." But whom did this hierarch of the Church Abroad have in mind? The self-satisfied Pharisees of our time, who imagine themselves to be righteous.

What, then, is the essence of this destructive Boston phenomenon?

In Phariseeism—in profound hypocrisy, pretense, and acting. When individuals occupying hierarchical or spiritual positions use their "confession of faith" and pseudo-zeal for Orthodoxy to mask their coarse vices and passions, beginning with unrestrained drunkenness (not only intoxicating themselves but also their clergy, from the youngest on up), sodomy, and so on. It is no surprise that such individuals go on to consecrate bishops who are just like themselves.

The case of the Boston monastery is, unfortunately, not unique in this regard. Let us recall the similar case of the Athonite Skete of St. Elias, whose inhabitants were also such "excessive zealots," and then it turned out...

Unrestrained zeal, closely tied to pride and self-conceit, often leads to falling into such sins. And if not specifically into sodomy, then inevitably into others. Moreover, drunkenness, as is well known, often goes hand in hand with debauchery… and one demon delivers the self-assured and proud "judge of the universe" into the hands of another.

What else is the distortion of the dogma of the Church—reducing the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, to a mere organization, a sect—but an ecclesiological heresy? This is precisely what "Bostonian theology," "Matthewite theology," and the like represent.

The Apostle Paul includes heresies among the works of the flesh: "The works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:20–21).

It is no surprise that the Boston "sages" (for Fr. Panteleimon was not alone) were given over by God to "dishonorable passions." And likely not only them, but many others like them, who are dominated by "carnal mindsets." This explains their inability to grasp obvious truths.

Heresies "belong to the works of the flesh by their source—'the carnal mind,' which is 'death,' which is 'enmity against God,' and which 'is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be' (Rom. 8:6–7). They belong to the works of the flesh by their consequences. Having alienated the human spirit from God and united it with the spirit of Satan through the chief sin of blasphemy, they subject it to the enslavement of passions, as one abandoned by God and given over to its own fallen nature. 'Their foolish hearts were darkened,' says the Apostle about the wise who deviated from the true knowledge of God, 'professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the truth of God into a lie; for this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions' (Rom. 1:21–26). Dishonorable passions refer to various carnal lusts."

"If holy men, who lived their lives with exceptional care for salvation, could not immediately recognize blasphemy masked in a guise, what can be said of those who live preoccupied with worldly cares, have an insufficient understanding of faith—the most insufficient? How can they recognize a deadly heresy when it appears to them adorned with the guise of wisdom, righteousness, and holiness? This is the reason why entire human societies and whole nations easily fell under the yoke of heresy." (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, On Orthodoxy).

As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov wrote in the same work, all heretics were terribly depraved, yet they donned the guise of righteousness and "righteous" zeal. The deluded "zeal without knowledge," based on hypocrisy, is terrifying, dangerous, and contagious. "Pursue hypocrisy within yourself, expelling it from yourself," wrote the saint. "Avoid the masses infected with it, who act both deliberately and unconsciously in its direction, covering their service to the world with service to God, their pursuit of temporal goods with the pursuit of eternal blessings, and disguising a corrupt life and a soul wholly given to passions with the mask of holiness." (St. Ignatius, Patericon, Conclusion). It could not be said more precisely.

Thus, the scandalous "Boston" issue is both a moral and an ecclesiological question, as the two are closely intertwined. There can be no true theology where hypocrisy, self-conceit, depravity in the broad sense, various vices, hatred of others, self-appointed judgment, and the desire to tear the Church apart (or the refusal to seek unity out of pride, ambition, and self-sufficiency) prevail. These are the sins pointed out by Bishop Anthony not only here but in many other places, which I have already published.

It is no coincidence that, as a response to these sorrowful Boston events, the well-known Christmas message of 1986 by the new First Hierarch addressed the issue of the Universal Church in general and the grace of local Churches in particular. Metropolitan Vitaly also did not fail to mention the local character of the anathema against ecumenism. This message became a declaration of moderation and the "royal" path that ROCOR had traditionally followed.

It is no coincidence, either, that in this message Metropolitan Vitaly referenced and quoted the name and words of the Holy Martyr Prof. Michael Novoselov, who wrote profoundly about the distinction between the Church as an "organization" and as a God-human "organism" (see my work on this subject in my blog, *"The Church of Christ: 'Organism' or 'Organization'?"). These distinctions must be understood. (The Metropolitan even reprinted Novoselov's Letters to Friends in his Canadian Bulletin). It is no surprise that the "zealots" raised by the Greek "elder" caused an uproar after the publication of this message by the Metropolitan, and some overly zealous "converts" went directly to the Matthewites (something Bishop Gregory himself reproachfully noted in one of his letters). Likewise, it is no coincidence that those who adhered to moderation and the "royal" path breathed a sigh of relief and joy after the wise words of the Metropolitan (5).

And this measured, sober position as the head of the Church (not a sect) was reaffirmed by Metropolitan Vitaly more than 10 years later, in 1997, at the Lesna Monastery before the clergy of the Western European Diocese, a moment witnessed by the author of these lines (and his voice remains preserved in recorded form). The issue here was not about "apostasy" or "hierarchs who have fallen away"—this has always been the teaching of ROCOR, as I have often noted, referencing numerous documents. I repeat, ROCOR has always followed this "royal," moderate path, not the "Melehov-style" or "ultra-correct" one.

* * * *

In connection with this Petition by Bishop Gregory—which is rather demagogic and speculative—the thought arises: was Metropolitan Vitaly not correct in retiring (as his first act after assuming office) the elderly and ailing bishop who, perhaps due to his condition, had lost discernment in means and in "discerning spirits"? A bishop for whom personal interests, biases, and grievances had become higher and more important than the Church's interests? From Bishop Gregory's subsequent "Suzdal" activities (his "swan song"), it becomes evident that, unfortunately, this was indeed the case (6). In 1994, he supported the Valentinov schism (or more precisely, created it), justifying its "legitimacy" by accusing the Church Abroad of allegedly falling into the "heresy" of Cyprianism and being subject to its own 1983 anathema. After this, he effectively left ROCOR, with almost his entire family subsequently ending up in the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC). Tragically, Bishop Gregory ended his life outside communion with the episcopate of ROCOR. This is a sad fact, but it cannot be denied.

In fairness, it is necessary to express gratitude to Bishop Gregory for his many years of selfless service to the Church. It is unknown what might have happened to the Church Abroad if he had not been there. As those familiar with him recount, this bishop was often seen in his office at the Synod when all the staff had already gone home, sitting late at his desk, piled high with papers. His work was truly titanic and fruitful, though not without criticisms, "missteps," and complaints. This is understandable, as his strong character—marked by a determination to push certain decisions—was not to everyone's liking, sometimes leading to violations of the principle of conciliarity and infringing on the rights of other bishops. It is also known that Metropolitan Philaret was not particularly inclined toward administrative matters (and was often absent from the Synod), which made Bishop Gregory's administrative role especially significant.

Bishop Gregory was an intelligent man, strong-willed, authoritative, a prominent church politician, a talented spiritual writer, and an analyst for many decades. This inevitably left its mark on him. Losing this authority and significance was a great temptation for him. Unfortunately, long-standing power has the potential to corrupt almost anyone, leading them to do much to continue asserting themselves. Indeed, Bishop Gregory, despite lacking formal theological education, was an expert in canons and ecclesiastical law. Yet, possessing a remarkable intellect and experience, he knew how to conveniently forget or skillfully circumvent them when it suited his purposes. However, the Petition in question does not address any illegality in the Synod's actions concerning the Boston clergy.

Some aspects of Bishop Gregory's complex character and actions are briefly described by Bishop Mitrofan (Znosko) in his book "The Chronicle of a Life" (Moscow, 1995). As this bishop recalled in his memoirs: "I had to endure many sorrows because of the malicious actions of the Synodal Chancellor..."—that is, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). Unfortunately, this opinion was not isolated; there were similar views from other bishops, though space does not permit their inclusion here.

It is also no secret that the influential Bishop Gregory was not alone—there was an entire "Grabbe clan" formed around him: family, friends, disciples, admirers... and then there were the Greeks as well. All of this created a complex and ambiguous mix. Now, try separating the "tares" from the "wheat" without pain.

Subdeacon V. Kirillov
19/02/2013

* * * *

Petition of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) Regarding the Boston Case

 

Your Eminences and Fellow Hierarchs,

For 55 years, at the calling of the ever-blessed Metropolitan Anthony and subsequently under his two successors, I have served the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. I have always thanked God for this, especially because in recent years the Lord has granted it to be, perhaps, the last bastion of Truth in the face of the triumphantly growing "Mystery of Iniquity." Perhaps it is for this reason that non-Russians have also been drawn to its fold and have become our spiritual children. Responsibility for them, in addition to our Russian flock, has also been placed upon us before God.

The aforementioned three hierarchs built the Russian Church Abroad with love—a love that, while preaching and bearing witness to the Truth, simultaneously showed leniency toward human weaknesses, preventing sinful phenomena from destroying its structure. It was on this foundation that it attracted new children of the Truth.

Our First Hierarchs always remembered that it is Truth, united with love, that draws people to the Church and unites them within it. Deprived of this foundation and built solely on condemning sins and seeking retribution for them, the Church cannot fulfill its mission. In such a case, even sincere zeal, according to the Apostle, becomes not only "sounding brass" but also a ferment of temptation and rapid decay.

Our departed First Hierarchs found ways, without unnecessary noise or general scandal, but with love and discernment, to overcome sinful phenomena, always guided by the 102nd Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which I earnestly ask you to reread here in order to understand me correctly.

At present, there is disarray in many places, especially among the new children of our Church. Allow me to express my thoughts regarding the recent decision concerning the Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which has led to the departure of two well-established monasteries from us. This could have enormous and very sorrowful consequences for our dioceses in North America, affecting 10 to 15 parishes.

Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy taught me that the benefit or harm of disciplinary measures for the flock largely depends on whether their fairness and necessity are unquestionably felt by both the accused and the broader circles of the affected faithful. Meanwhile, the resolution in the case of Fathers Panteleimon and Isaac is regarded as unjust by the overwhelming majority of our flock, particularly the Greek faithful in the Boston area, and has caused confusion and indignation among them. The same attitude is shared by the entire clergy of this area (around 10 individuals). It is also important to note that all the parishes in the area, except for Epiphany Parish, whose rector was in conflict with the Transfiguration Monastery, are closely connected with it and hold Fr. Panteleimon in high regard.

Another detail to consider is that the property of the Transfiguration Monastery, accumulated by Fr. Panteleimon from nothing, is worth millions. The removal of its founder and the appointment of Archbishop Anthony as investigator and, even temporarily, as abbot, could easily raise suspicions among the Greeks that the matter was initiated with selfish motives on our part.

For many who are familiar with the ecclesiastical situation in the Boston area, it remains a question whether the Synod was aware of all these details when making its decision.

Now we are faced with a great spiritual wound and the scandal of many people, and the criticism and condemnation will fall upon the First Hierarch and all the Bishops. As someone who knows this flock—since in recent years Metropolitan Philaret was unable to travel there and sent me in his place—my heart breaks at the thought of their temptation and the possible consequences. Therefore, I implore all the Most Reverend members of the Council to consider urgent measures to address this grave illness that has arisen among them, so they may feel that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not a cruel stepmother but a loving mother.

Your Eminences,

The Boston case is of such magnitude that responsibility for it before God lies not with one diocesan bishop alone but with all the members of the Council, since the decisions, unfortunately, were not made by him personally but conciliar. All of them will answer for the monks, nuns, and faithful who may depart from us, unable to endure this trial. How will we feel when, because of our actions, we see them on the left side at the Last Judgment?

I ask forgiveness for breaking my silence and sounding the alarm, even though I have been retired.

Bishop Gregory

 

Below is the canonical rule mentioned in Bishop Gregory’s Petition, so that everyone may judge for themselves how applicable it is to the Boston case, given the unrepentance of the transgressor.

From the 102nd Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: "Those who have received from God the authority to bind and loose must consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner to repent, and thus apply a remedy appropriate to the ailment, so that, by not observing due measure in either direction, they do not forfeit the salvation of the one who is ailing. For the disease of sin is not uniform, but diverse and multifaceted, producing many branches of harm, from which evil flows abundantly until it is checked by the power of the healer. Therefore, it is fitting for one who practices the spiritual art of healing to first examine the disposition of the sinner, observing whether they are inclined toward health or, on the contrary, by their own habits, are nurturing the disease and how they are conducting themselves in the meantime. If the patient does not resist the physician and heals their spiritual wound through the application of the prescribed remedies, then mercy should be measured out to them appropriately."

 

 

Russian source:

http://internetsobor.org/index.php/stati/avtorskaya-kolonka/bostonskij-vopros-nravstvennyj-ili-ekkleziologicheskij