30 years ago, the ROCOR established Eucharistic communion with the "Synod in Resistance"

July 11, 2024

 

In 1993, the hierarchs of the "Synod in Resistance" approached the ecclesiastical authority of the ROCOR with a proposal to establish Eucharistic communion. By decision of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops on July 21/August 3, 1993, an expert commission was created to study this issue, which included Archbishop Laurus (Škurla) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity, Bishop Mitrophan (Znosko-Borovsky) of Boston, and Bishop Daniel (Alexandrov) of Erie. After the commission completed its work, the issue was submitted for discussion at the 1994 ROCOR Council of Bishops:

 

PROTOCOL No. 7
of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
June 28/July 11, 1994

Present are all the Right Reverend bishops listed in Protocol No. 1, except for the Right Reverend Bishop Varnava [Prokofiev] of Cannes, who departed for Europe.

The session began at 10 a.m.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly [Ustinov], gives the floor to the Right Reverend Bishop Photios [Siromakhov] of Triaditsa, of the Bulgarian Old Calendar Church, who received consecration from the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian [Koutsoumpas].

Bishop Photios [Siromakhov] reports on the main contemporary danger to Orthodoxy—the heresy of Ecumenism. It has penetrated almost all the local Churches and is corrupting the Orthodox ecclesiastical consciousness. It dissolves the sense of boundaries between Truth and heresy.

The so-called Balamand Union took place in June 1993 at a meeting between Catholics and Orthodox at the Balamand Orthodox Monastery in Lebanon. The Orthodox side recognized the Roman Catholic Church as a sister Church and acknowledged the right of existence of the Uniate communities. This resolution was later officially recognized by the Romanian New Calendar Church as well.

Bishop Photios goes on to speak about the agreement between representatives of the Orthodox local Churches and the Monophysites. The Patriarchate of Antioch is now in communion with the anti-Chalcedonians—the Monophysites. The Monophysites do not recognize the last four Ecumenical Councils.

He quotes an interview with Patriarch Alexei II, in which he says that there are no theological or dogmatic differences between the Orthodox and the Monophysites.

The falling away is advancing rapidly. If the traditional Churches continue to live in isolation, only the enemies of Orthodoxy will rejoice at this.

Bishop Photios then speaks about why he is in communion with the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian and not with other Greek Old Calendarist groups. He mentions the various (four) jurisdictions in Greece. All of them, except for Metropolitan Cyprian, hold a principled ecclesiological view that the New Calendarists have no [sacramental] grace. They also have a negative attitude toward the Russian Church Abroad. Metropolitan Cyprian has a correct patristic ecclesiology, that is, we canonically protect ourselves from destructive influence, primarily from Ecumenism.

It is necessary that we be in a fraternal union, so that by joint efforts we may stand for the Truth.

The Right Reverend Bishops ask Bishop Photios questions on this topic, and a discussion takes place on the matter of the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, expresses gratitude to Bishop Photios, and he leaves the meeting hall.

Bishop Daniel [Alexandrov] notes that the Orthodox Church is by nature fundamentally conservative. At present, the modernists have seized power in the Church. Unfortunately, the conservative element is now fragmented. Therefore, cooperation and communion between our Churches is very important. There is a way to avoid the problem of having to act as judges among the Greek Old Calendarists. We can say: we welcome communion with all Greek Old Calendarists who wish to be in communion with us.

Archbishop Laurus [Škurla], a member of the Commission on the issue of establishing liturgical communion with the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, reads a brief summary on the history of the Old Calendar (True Orthodox) Church. (Text attached.)

Archbishop Laurus then reads his report concerning the possibility of establishing prayerful and Eucharistic communion with Metropolitan Cyprian and his Synod. (Text attached.)

Bishop Mitrophan [Znosko-Borovsky], the other member of the Commission, added to the text of Archbishop Laurus's report: “I find the establishment of full prayerful communion with the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian and with the group of Bulgarian Bishop Photios to be necessary.”

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, speaks about the difficulties in understanding all the divisions among the Old Calendarists in Greece.

Archbishop Mark [Arndt] notes that all, except for Metropolitan Cyprian, consider themselves the only Orthodox.

Bishop Daniel says that he translated into Russian an article on the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian. He later read the objections as well. It is said that Metropolitan Cyprian created a cult of personality around himself. It is also said that he established a self-willed autocephaly. Bishop Daniel fears that we may fall victim to yet another venture. We must not make a mistake.

Archbishop Laurus believes that a condition should be set for them: that we will not interfere in their church life, and they should not interfere in our church affairs.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, adds that they should consult with us if they wish to receive anyone (for example, some group).

Archbishop Anthony [Medvedev] of [San Francisco and] Western America says that it would be better not to set conditions for them, but for us to keep this in mind ourselves. And they should have nothing to do with what we do.

Archbishop Mark points to his good experience with the Greeks—they consult with him. The French were received by the Romanians, not by the Greeks of Metropolitan Cyprian. When coming to Germany, the Greeks always observe order and ask his permission.

Archbishop Anthony [Sinkevich] of Los Angeles says that he has known Metropolitan Cyprian since he was an archimandrite. He showed hospitality to Vladyka Anthony. Archbishop Anthony then asks how many monasteries, parishes, and hierarchs they have. He knows Bishop Chrysostomos [Gonzales(-Alexopoulos)] of Etna well and considers him not entirely mentally stable. For some reason, Metropolitan Cyprian has no influence over him. Concern should be expressed regarding the fact that the Greek Old Calendarists are establishing their parishes in Russia.

Bishop Benjamin [Rusalenko] explains that he asked Metropolitan Cyprian about this. The latter said that he has nothing in Russia. If we enter into communion with Metropolitan Cyprian, then Archbishop Lazarus will use this occasion for his own benefit, since he has established the same kind of self-willed administration as Metropolitan Cyprian.

Archbishop Mark says that this is a completely different case.

Bishop Hilarion [Kapral] says that the majority of those who sent objections are former Bostonites. The only group that has a similar ecclesiology to that of Metropolitan Cyprian is Bishop Petros [Astyfides] in Astoria. They even want to enter our Church as a separate diocese. The prejudice against this group existed among us under the influence of Panteleimon [Metropoulos].

Archbishop Alypy says that he spoke with Archbishop Petros, and he complained to him about problems with Bishop Paisios [Loulourgas (?)]

Archbishop Laurus notes that recently Paisios was about to be tried, but the day before the trial he appeared before Archbishop Chrysostomos, and they concelebrated together.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, says that Archbishop Petros must be with us.

Bishop Hilarion says that they have not yet submitted a petition.

Bishop Mitrophan holds the same view as expressed by Bishop Photios and believes that communion should be established with Metropolitan Cyprian.

Bishop Daniel notes that the very name “Synod in Resistance” sounds somewhat revolutionary. This is somewhat dangerous for our Russian hierarchs.

Bishop Ambrose [Cantacuzène] considers the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian to be a venture. In a short period, many bishops were made under him, for example Bishop Evloghios (Hessler). He believes that we are diminishing our prestige.

Archbishop Mark says that Bishop Evloghios did not belong to the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, but to that of Metropolitan Callistus.

Bishop Kirill [Dmitriev] has known Metropolitan Cyprian for a long time. These are positive people, and there will be benefit for our Church if we enter into prayerful communion with them.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, says that we have reached a certain unanimity and thinks that we can enter into communion with Metropolitan Cyprian.

Bishop Ambrose objects and repeats that we are diminishing our prestige if we enter into Eucharistic communion with the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian. Archbishop Anthony [Bartoshevich] of Geneva himself would be against this. He would not be able to concelebrate with them.

Archbishop Mark replies that Archbishop Anthony always listened to the opinion of a young Frenchman who had a negative attitude toward Metropolitan Cyprian, considering him an adventurer. Archbishop Mark himself saw the piety of the people there. The best professors of the theological faculty in Athens deeply admire Metropolitan Cyprian.

The Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, suggests that Bishop Ambrose become more closely acquainted with Metropolitan Cyprian.

Bishop Daniel notes that the question of the Bulgarian Old Calendar Church, that is, of Bishop Photios, depends on the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian. Thus, we are entering into communion with him as well.

RESOLVED: To establish prayerful and Eucharistic communion with the Greek Old Calendar Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, as well as with the Right Reverend Photios of Triaditsa, of the Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church.

[Link: https://sinod.ruschurchabroad.org/Arh%20Sobor%201994%20Prot.htm]

 

In the official resolution of the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, adopted on August 3/16, 1994, it was stated that “the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully adheres to the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles as the <...> Russian Church Abroad.” Despite the official status of such a statement, not everyone in the ROCOR agreed with it. There were especially many dissenters among the neophytes who had joined ROCOR in the territory of the former USSR, who did not wish to recognize even the slightest presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate or in “official Orthodoxy” in general. Many of them joined the “Free Russian Orthodox Church,” which separated that same year and was renamed in 1998 to the “Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church.” Some joined Greek Old Calendarist jurisdictions.

The established Eucharistic communion lasted only 11 years. At the meeting of the hierarchy of the "Synod in Resistance" held on October 17, 2005, a decision was made to cease ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by Metropolitan Laurus (Škurla). The prompting reason for this was the extremely negative perception by the Greek hierarchs of the prospect of the Russian Church Abroad returning to submission to the Moscow Patriarchate. The second important decision of that Synod session was the resolution to ordain Archimandrite George (Pukhate), head of the Alanian Diocese located in the territory of the Republic of South Ossetia, as Bishop of Alania. On February 21, 2006, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops, having reviewed the latest letter from Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumpas) notifying them of this break, resolved to recognize communion with the "Synod in Resistance" as severed, “which will be communicated to the Primates of the Old Calendar Churches of Romania and Bulgaria.”

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/180471.html