On the Pseudo-Zealotry of the RTOC

Petition to the Synod of the RTOC from the rector of the Omsk parish, Protopriest Vasily Savelyev

June 5, 2015

 

Your Eminences, Right Reverend Vladykas, bless!

The reason for this letter was serious concern over the shift in the course of our Church away from the path outlined in the final documents of the Voronezh meetings, toward the ideology of the “Boston schism,” the Auxentian and Matthewite Synods of the GOC of Greece, that is — toward the far-right wing of contemporary Orthodoxy.

While at the 2008 Council it was stated that there was adherence to the course of the Russian Church Abroad up to the year 2000, in the “Resolution of the Hierarchical Synod of the RTOC” dated December 11, 2014, something entirely opposite is declared. Thus, the decision of the ROCOR Hierarchical Council from July 11, 1994, regarding entry into Eucharistic communion and agreement with the ecclesiology of the Synod in Resistance is now considered erroneous, and the teaching of the Synod in Resistance is called not only once again heretical, but also “a veiled form of ecumenism or crypto-ecumenism,” and therefore falls under the 1983 anathema. The union of the GOC of Greece and the Synod in Resistance is called “the fall of the GOC of Greece into union with schismatics and crypto-ecumenists.” This applies to ROCOR as well, since according to the current secretary of the RTOC Synod, [Fr. Victor] Melehov — as expressed in his article “Cyprianism: Crypto-Ecumenism — the Heresy of Our Time” (see our website from February 1, 2013) — ROCOR, by synodally accepting the Cyprianite heresy in 1994, fell seriously in matters of the Faith. Thus, by the logic of the “Bostonians,” it “automatically” lost grace in all its sacraments…

Vladykas, why do we need such an extreme and by no means undisputed new “theology” and church policy, which drive us into a canonical dead end and a corner of self-isolation? After all, just 10–15 years ago, the RTOC had a different ideology: without far-right theology and exclusive self-sufficiency.

It is well known to all of us that Vl. Lazar was not an anti-Cyprianite, but rather the opposite; thus, under him we attempted to gain the support of the Synod in Resistance, but at that time they were loyal to the Synod of [Metropolitan] Laurus, and we were refused.

In 2002, when Metropolitan Vitaly’s directive (dated March 11) regarding the establishment of a Hierarchical Synod in Russia was brought, the 2nd All-Russian Conference was held in Voronezh on April 17–18, which supported “...canonical submission to Metropolitan Vitaly — the continuer of the traditional course of ROCOR...,” and synodally expressed support for the creation of a Synod and episcopal consecrations.

And also, in point 2.6, it stated: “...we cannot accept the ideology and practice of certain Greek Old Calendarists (e.g., the ‘Matthewites’) and similar Russian schismatics (pseudo-catacomb structures), who, in order to cover their passions, use the schismatic notions and methods of Novatian and Donatus concerning a ‘church of the pure.’ This extremely radical ideology fragments the ranks of the Orthodox who resist ecumenism and the new world order, increasing the number of non-canonical sectarian-type groups, and draws their participants down into the abyss of perdition.”

At that time, Melehov was the secretary of the North American diocese. Two days later (April 20), he spoke, together with other members of the Hierarchical Conference in Mansonville, against Metr. Vitaly and asserted that “...no separate church administration in Russia can be established. Consequently, episcopal consecrations in Russia can be performed only by decision of the ROCOR Hierarchical Council.”

Later, in his work “‘French’ Ecclesiology and the Fall of ROCOR”, he would express “...doubt regarding the Orthodoxy of the ecclesiology of Archbishop Lazar and his circle, including the newly ordained bishops consecrated by him...”. That is, until the moment of his reception into the RTOC in 2007 (without any repentance on his part for the above), you were, in his eyes — non-Orthodox heretics. And in fact, he should not have been received at all, having been lawfully deprived of his rank in 1987. You placed yourselves above not only the representative and authoritative ROCOR Synod of 1987, but also above the Canons of the Church, violating a number of canonical rules: Basil the Great, 3; Apostolic, 28; Antioch, 4; Carthage, 9. For what purpose? To exchange a moderately left position for an extreme right one, bypassing the center? It seems that the chairman of the Synod — Vl. Tikhon — was already under the “spell” of the new “confessor” from Worcester. Evidently, the “theological” critique of “Cyprianism” came in handy, especially after [Metropolitan Agafangel] Pashkovsky’s union with the Synod in Resistance, in order to definitively distance oneself from the group of Metr. Agafangel.

And now the first “Bostonian swallows” arrive in the Resolution of the III Voronezh Conference:

a) “...we believe that clergy coming into the True Church from the MP must be received through repentance and the performance of an additional laying-on of hands (cheirothesia)...”

b) “...grace-filled action is possible only through the True Church of Christ.”

In 2008, these points were synodally confirmed and two more were added:

c) “official world Orthodoxy has fallen away from the Church of Christ, and its sacraments are ineffective for salvation”;

d) the heresy of ecumenism in its concealed confession is not accepted: “...in the teaching about ‘the sick in faith’ members of the Church,” that is — “Cyprianism.”

Although in the very first paragraph of the Resolution of the Sacred Council it was declared: “The Russian True Orthodox Church confesses and preserves the Orthodox Christian Faith as it was confessionally preserved by the Catacomb Church, and by the Russian Church Abroad up until the year 2000.”

Judging by the document of our Synod dated December 11, 2014, at the 2017 Council there will no longer be such contradictions: everything will be strictly logical, in the Melehov style. Only by then, nothing will remain of the Church of Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret, Vitaly, and Vladyka Lazar... There will be nothing but an expanded “Orthodox” rationalist sect of the “Boston schism.”

One cannot cease to be amazed at the presumption of people who have not spent a single day as clergymen in “official Orthodoxy,” who have not performed a single sacrament, yet shout louder than anyone: “There it is empty, there is no grace, nothing takes place there!” How do you know this? You were not there. Why not ask those who came out of the Moscow Patriarchate, even out of mere curiosity: what did you experience there, what did you feel — or did you feel nothing at all? I testify: when I left the Patriarchate 25 years ago, Grace was fully present there in all the sacraments being performed! I did not leave Grace, but episcopal lawlessness; the same ecumenism on the local level, and the impossibility of fighting against all this from within! Yes, a quarter of a century has passed, but to this day those who come out of the Patriarchate, whether laypeople or clergy, testify to the same! That same saving Grace leads those who thirst for God's truth out of the nets of the upper hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate. A great Mercy of God is at work here!

Glorified among the saints by the RTOC Council in 2008, the Catacomb priest Mikhail Rozhdestvensky wrote: “Not all in the Catacomb Church are saved, and not all in the Moscow Patriarchate perish.” “He who attends the Soviet church out of ignorance may, perhaps, receive grace; but he who partakes knowingly — it is unto condemnation. But not all will perish there, and not all will be saved here — at the Judgment, deeds and love will be required.” (Belgorodskaya A. V., Hidden Russia // Orthodox Life. – Jordanville, N.Y., 1997, No. 1 [565], p. 8).

Therefore, it is better to be cautious and not to make declarations about gracelessness and the invalidity of the sacraments performed there, lest through recklessness one blaspheme the Holy Spirit — for which the Lord may permit carnal sins: lustful burning, drunkenness, and the like.

As for the “hidden ecumenism,” or “crypto-ecumenism,” allegedly lurking in the teaching of Metr. Cyprian, one can only throw up one’s hands: such “theology” can only be called woe from wit. Behind it lies Mr. Melehov’s crypto-desire to justify his “confessorial” departure from ROCOR in 1987. But true confessors are found within the bounds of the Church, while those who do not listen to the Church are called schismatics. Years of stubborn persistence in one’s own “rightness” only confirms the presence in him of a “stronghold of pride” — the bulwark of all heretics and schismatics. Christ said: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” (Matt. 7:15–16)

And what are the fruits of the Synod in Resistance and the former ROCOR priest Viktor Melehov?

In 2005, the Synod refused Metropolitan Laurus’s proposal to recognize the Moscow Patriarchate, but did not sever ties with the ROCOR(L) Synod, hoping that the “afflicted” would recover. In 2007, after the final union of ROCOR(L) with the MP, the Synod in Resistance broke off prayerful communion with Metropolitan Laurus. And what is this — “crypto-ecumenism” or standing in the Truth? Yes, it is abiding in the Truth. Over the last quarter century, the Synod has done tremendous work against ecumenism: books, brochures, articles, and films were published and distributed throughout the world, conferences were convened, and lectures and presentations were delivered of an anti-ecumenist and anti-modernist nature. And they did not impose their “teaching” on anyone, claiming that it alone was the only true one, as real heretics do. Moreover, in the Confession of Faith of the united Synod of the GOC of Greece from March 21, 2014, not a single word or letter of “Cyprianism” remains.

The fruits of Melekhov’s labors in the ecclesiastical field are, in their own way, noteworthy: in 1986, he increased the ranks of the “Boston” schismatics; he did not submit to the suspension from ministry issued by the ROCOR ecclesiastical authority; in 1987, he was deposed by the Synod of Metropolitan Vitaly; in 2001, he was unilaterally restored to the priesthood and received into ROCOR(V) by the elderly metropolitan; in 2003, the deposition of 1987 was reaffirmed by Metropolitan Vitaly and his entourage — he left ROCOR(V); he changed jurisdictions five times; in 2007, he was received as a protopresbyter into the RTOC, and to this day continues to serve.

Everywhere he has been, the fruits turn out to be the same — bitter and sour. Apparently, a schismatic will remain a schismatic even in Africa. Therefore, I propose that the entire Melehov-style anti-Cyprianism, steeped in pride and lust for power, be considered in the light of a crypto-schism, which he potentially brings with him into every jurisdiction.

Moreover, the ideology of militant “anti-Cyprianism,” like any “...extremely radical ideology, fragments the ranks of the Orthodox who resist ecumenism and the new world order” (2nd Voronezh), and directs the main efforts and attention of true Orthodox Christians in various countries toward internal strife, thereby willingly or unwillingly aiding ecumenism and the new world order. Therefore, it is precisely this ideology, and not “Cyprianism,” that should justly be called crypto-ecumenism.

If one possesses humility and Christian love toward our confessor brethren from Greece, then the teaching “about the sick-in-faith members of the Church” can be called neither “crypto-ecumenism” nor heresy. Perhaps the deepest and most objective analysis of this teaching was given by our historian and theologian of the late 20th century — Protopriest Lev Lebedev — in his two letters to Metropolitan Cyprian in May 1997. Later critics of the teaching often borrowed his ideas, but drew their own conclusions. Now, Fr. Lev, while noting all the contradictions and even errors in the view of the Synod in Resistance regarding “Orthodox” ecumenists, never called their position heretical and considered it a “private theological opinion” with a right to exist. The opposite viewpoint of their opponents — the “zealots” (who hold that the “ecumenist churches are already heretical communities whose sacraments are not performed”) — he also viewed as a private theological opinion, likewise having the right to exist. In both views he saw “their own weaknesses”: some overly broaden, while others overly narrow the boundaries of the Church — sometimes even to the scale of only their own jurisdiction.

Where is the proper ecclesiastical resolution to the question? Father Lev offers guidance:

“To resolve this fundamental disagreement among Orthodox anti-ecumenists, what is truly needed is a broad, representative Council! It should first be a Council of all those who oppose ecumenism. And it must receive the manifest good pleasure (enlightenment) of the Holy Spirit. So that its decisions may be accepted according to the Apostolic formula: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us...’ For neither a solitary human mind, nor even the unanimous opinion of a group of bishops from one or another individual synod of opponents of ecumenism is, as we see, currently capable of producing a view of the present boundaries of the Church that is acceptable to all faithful Orthodox. These boundaries must be shown to us by the Lord Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit. At the same time, I do not at all assert the uselessness of our human reflections. In a spirit of prayer and attentiveness, with utmost humility, we must, evidently, continue to think and to gaze into the essence of things. But we must rely on the final enlightenment from God.”

This is truly ecclesial thinking, not sectarian or narrowly partisan. This is a pointing toward the Royal, Middle path — not its routine declaration that has wandered through our official documents for the past eight years! If there had truly been a desire for Church-building, and not a desire to “privatize” one’s own portion of the former ROCOR, then the reaction to the union with the Greeks would have been different. The Church people and clergy, for the most part, do not understand why True Orthodox Christians are not united. What is being divided “at the top” again? Why is it that even laypeople are not permitted to commune in other “fragments” of ROCOR? And what is being done to overcome this? Or perhaps this is no longer the voice of the people, but the Voice of God?!

The conclusion of all the above-said is the following request –

To establish a theological-canonical commission for the objective clarification of the following questions:

1) Does the Confession of Faith of the united Synod of the GOC of Greece (with the participation of the GOC of Bulgaria, Romania, and ROCOR[A]), proclaimed in Athens on March 21, 2014, contain any points that contradict the Orthodox confession of faith of the RTOC?

2) Is “Cyprianism” a heresy, as well as a form of hidden ecumenism (“crypto-ecumenism”) falling under the 1983 ROCOR anathema, or is it a private theological opinion of Metr. Cyprian and the Synod in Resistance?

3) Will militant anti-Cyprianism, having penetrated our Church, become a cause of schism, when all those who do not accept it will be anathematized as heretics and cut off from Holy Communion (a precedent has already occurred in Moscow)?!

4) Can militant anti-Cyprianism be called a hidden heresy of Donatism?

5) Is the decision of the Synod from December 11, 2014, valid, which ruled to consider the decision of the ROCOR Hierarchical Council of July 28, 1994, erroneous, while the Resolution of the 2008 Council affirms: “The Russian True Orthodox Church confesses and preserves the Orthodox Christian Faith as it was confessionally preserved by the Catacomb Church, and by the Russian Church Abroad up to the year 2000”? Is not such a decision the prerogative of a future Council alone?

6) Has the course and ideology of the RTOC changed after the death in 2005 of Vl. Lazar, former chairman of the Hierarchical Synod of the RTOC; and if so, in what direction?

7) Can a lawful deposition from holy orders be overturned without violating the following canonical rules: Basil the Great, 3; Apostolic, 28; Antioch, 4; Carthage, 9; and will the Sacraments be validly performed by Victor Melehov, who was “rightfully deposed” but received into communion?

8) Can a person serve as secretary of the Synod who publicly opposed the establishment of the Synod of our Church and episcopal consecrations, who later expressed “...doubt concerning the Orthodoxy of the ecclesiology of Archbishop Lazar and his circle, including the bishops newly consecrated by him...”; whom the clergy do not trust, and who has not even publicly apologized?

Forgive me, Vladykas, for the uncomfortable questions and for the lengthiness in presenting my thoughts: my soul aches for our Church and for the people who still place their trust in us. I ask for your holy prayers and archpastoral blessing.

Protopriest Vasily Savelyev
Omsk
05.06.2015

 

Russian source: https://orthodoxrusk.livejournal.com/16473.html