Address of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (Moscow Patriarchate) to His Eminence Bishop Photii of Triaditza.
16/29 June 2007
St. Tychon, Bishop of Amathus in Cyprus
To His Eminence
The Most Reverend Bishop Photii of Triaditza
Your Eminence, beloved in Christ Vladyka!
We appeal to Your Grace again with a
fraternal epistle on account of the events in the life of our Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad.
As you are informed, on 4/17 May this
year, on the day of the Lord's Ascension in the church of Christ the Saviour in
Moscow took place the solemn signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Russian Orthodox Church of the
Moscow Patriarchate. According to this Act, the Russian Church Abroad remains
independent “in the pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property
and civil matters”.
We acquainted ourselves with some of
your pronouncements regarding the process of restoration of unity in the
Russian Church. We are sincerely regretful of the fact that, under
circumstances not cleared up yet, you did not receive from the Chancellery of
our Synod of Bishops our last letter, in which we enunciated our high appraisal
of our steadfast stand for the preservation of the Orthodox Church Calendar and
other primordial traditions, and expressed our intent to preserve with you good
fraternal relations.
We asked you to treat the process of
reconciliation with the Church in Russia with understanding and the awareness
that this is an internal act of the Russian Church. It is our sincere
conviction that the revival process of the Church in our much-suffered
Motherland after the fall of the atheist authorities is, by God's Grace, so
radical and all-encompassing, that we cannot remain aloof and not join it.
We have no intention in whatever way
to retreat from our witness of True Orthodoxy before the entire world, and
shall continue to condemn both the pernicious ecumenism and modernism.
We cannot but agree with the following
of your words which were published recently:
“Here we ought to admit honestly and
frankly that, very unfortunately, with respect to the Moscow Patriarchate, the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad did not always hold to a theologically and
spiritually consistent position, because all the overly stark criticism and the
qualifications of the Moscow Patriarchate such as 'graceless assemblage',
'Soviet' and 'the red church', etc., are journalistically expressed extreme
opinions, rather than actual theological
assessments per se with regard to the
extremely heterogeneous and intricate organism which the Moscow Patriarchate
is.”
“In this regard we cannot apply, in a
way both fanatical and schematic, the maxima:
if their ruling Bishops are such, then all of them are such, and therefore they
lack Grace”.
“Too many errors were allowed in
relation with the rash establishment of parishes in Russia and especially with
the rash and unconsidered consecration of Bishops there. And their errors,
regrettably, very quickly and in rather short terms, destroyed the high
authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.” (From the talk of Bishop
Photii of Triaditza with the congregations in Plovdiv, Pazardzhik and
Blagoevgrad, which took place on 16 and 27 November 2006).
Precisely in relation with these
pronouncements of yours, we consider it to be the duty of our conscience to
forewarn you in a brotherly manner that the leaders of the “opposition” of the
reconciliation process are namely those people of fanatical frame of mind, who
do not comprehend our balanced and moderate position and deny the presence of
Grace in the Moscow Patriarchate.
And the head of this opposition, the
suspended Bishop Agafangel is precisely one of the Bishops you condemn who were
rashly and inconsiderately consecrated [for Russia].
Another leader of this opposition, the
suspended priest Victor Dobrov, is an extremely fanaticized denouncer of the
Moscow Patriarchate and our Hierarchical Synod, who indulges in the usage of
such expressions in the regard of our Bishops and Priests which none could use
and yet consider themselves to be still Orthodox.
The third oppositional leader, Dr.
Evgenii Magerovsky, on the whole preaches the necessity that a new form be
established of ecclesiastical administration, according to which the clergymen
and the lay people not only would be entitled to participate in the higher
governing of the Church but also have the veto to decisions made by the Bishops
at the Councils or the Synods.
We earnestly ask you, Vladyka, not to
become involved with such “oppositionists”, who only bring discredit to the
witness of Orthodoxy and attempt to establish a schismatic structure passing
off as “preserving” the genuine Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
We are very much alarmed that some of
your Old Calendarist brethren have expressed their readiness even to take part
in the consecrations of Bishops for the groups in opposition, which would only
bring about the further fragmentation of the flock of Christ.
We trust in God's mercy in this
difficult time and ask your holy prayers.
With brotherly love in Christ,
+ Metropolitan Laurus
+ Archbishop Mark
+ Archbishop Kyrill
+ Bishop Michael
+ Bishop Gabriel
Source:
https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/ch-life/official/rocorsynod_photii2007-06-29en.htm
Response of the Bishop Photii of
Triaditsa, to the Appeal of the hierarchs of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside of Russia (Moscow Patriarchate)
To His Eminence,
the Most Reverend LAURUS,
Metropolitan of New York and Eastern America
Copy: To Their Graces Archbishop Mark and Archbishop Kirill,
and to Their Graces Bishop Peter and Bishop Gabriel
Sofia, July 1/14, 2007
of the Holy Unmercenary Healers Cosmas and Damian,
who suffered in Rome,
and of the Venerable John of Rila, the Wonderworker
Your Eminence,
Most Reverend Vladyka!
Recalling our warm brotherly
relations in the recent past, I now write to you with pain. Believe me, I say
this in complete sincerity, not for the sake of empty words.
In response to the synodal letter
of June 16/29 of this year, signed by Your Eminence, the Most Reverend
Archbishops Mark and Kirill, and the Most Reverend Bishops Peter and Gabriel, I
would like to note the following:
1. In connection with the request
mentioned in that letter to relate “to the question of reconciliation with the
Church in Russia with understanding and with the awareness that this is an
internal matter of the Russian Church,” I permit myself to remind Your Eminence
of the words contained in my letter to you of April 18/May 1, 2006:
“Your Eminence, I would like
<…> to emphasize the thought that quite intentionally I refrain from
public statements regarding the negotiations on the reconciliation of the
Russian Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate until the completion of this
negotiating process in its fundamental and principal points. Such premature
statements would be incorrect on my part and would constitute an act of
interference in the affairs of a self-governing sister Church. Nevertheless, I
could not fail to express to you privately my concern about certain
characteristics and tendencies of the negotiating process at its present stage.
I venture to say this not in the capacity of a cold critic and an outside
observer, but in the capacity of a man and a bishop who loves the holy Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and who experiences pain from the wounds in
her Body. What troubles me, holy Vladyka, is the lack, in my view, of a
sufficiently deep and principled theological vision and comprehension of the
presuppositions, starting positions, content, and essence of the dialogue of
the Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate. Moreover, it grieves me to note
certain characteristics of the content and essence of the dialogue itself. By
way of illustration only, I would point to the logical-verbal device that
troubles me, namely the leveling of differences by means now of bureaucratic,
now of flexible and vague theological and ecclesiastical-political language;
further, a burdensome impression is produced by a “double standard” in certain
ecclesiastical-historical and theological evaluations of key events and
questions; moreover, the dialogue is in some way ominously subordinated to the
mentality traditionally characteristic of the Moscow Patriarchate, in which
there stand out a deft ecclesiastical-political and diplomatic mode of
thinking, as well as a <…> openly or cryptically Sergianist experience of
compromise adaptation to the ‘realities of modernity’ at the price of the
relativization of truth.”
2. As regards the Resolution of
the Holy Synod of the Russian Church Abroad on the cessation of Eucharistic
communion with the Old Calendar Synods of the Romanian and Bulgarian Churches
(approved at the session of the Synod on August 24/September 6, 2006), which I
received officially as an Appendix to your letter of June 16/29 of this year, I
would again like to remind you of what I said on this matter in my letter to
Your Eminence of January 12/25 of this year:
“The feelings of perplexity,
heaviness, and sorrow were evoked in me by this Resolution. In the following
lines I shall dwell on its content.
“In the first point of the
Resolution, among other things, the following is stated: ‘… our Church
continues fraternally to call upon these Churches to follow our example and to
enter into dialogue with the corresponding Local Churches, for the healing of the
wounds of division, and for the confirmation of their canonical status while
preserving the ecclesiastical calendar.’ Is union with the so-called official
Local Churches a condition for the confirmation of the canonical status of our
Churches? From the logic of the quotation, it follows that the Russian Church
Abroad itself did not possess a confirmed canonical status prior to its union
with the Moscow Patriarchate!
“But in reality, the spiritual
authenticity of Tradition (to which also belongs the patristic heortologion
= the Church calendar), that is, the fullness of the Truth of Christ, gives
meaning to the entire visible structure of the Church with her canonicity and
officiality. Or, in other words, the living preservation of the spiritually
authentic Tradition of the Church is the source of canonicity and of the
concrete canonical status of a given Local Church; whereas canonicity and
‘officiality,’ understood in a formal sense, are in themselves far from being
the source and guarantee of this fullness of Truth and spiritual authenticity
of Tradition.”
In the second point of the
Resolution, mention is made of the non-acceptance by the Romanian and Bulgarian
Churches of the fraternal appeals of the Russian Church Abroad to follow her
example and for these Churches to enter into dialogue with the corresponding
Local Churches. As regards me personally, in the course of our official
conversation, Protopriest Alexander Lebedev directly asked me how I viewed the
possibility of heading an Old Calendar diocese with all our parishes, churches,
and monasteries within the structure of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. I replied
that such an approach is for me unacceptable in principle, since it transfers
the logic of the Latin unia onto Orthodox soil; all the more so because
for our Church the criterion for the establishment of Eucharistic communion is
confessional, spiritually substantive, and not formally administrative — as
though our entry into the composition of a patriarchate embraced by deep
apostasy processes ipso facto were to transform us from “schismatics”
into “canonical members of the Church.” This latter view is absurd in many
respects, and not least because of the emptiness of content and even a certain
immorality of an understanding according to which Orthodox people who cherish
the dogmatic and canonical Tradition of the Church, and their actions, are
“valid” in an ecclesiastical sense only in their officially recognized
functions within a certain purely formal self-sufficient legality. In this
second point of the Resolution there is also a chronological error — the
Epistle of the Synod in Resistance concerning the “cessation with us (that is,
with ROCOR) of ecclesiastical communion” did not follow, but rather preceded,
the corresponding letters of Your Eminence to the Primates of the Romanian and
Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches. This Epistle bears the date of November 22,
2005 (old style). [1] As regards the canonical communion of the Romanian and
Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches with the Synod in Resistance, which ceased its
communion with the Russian Church Abroad, this situation is indeed problematic
from a canonical standpoint. But from 1992 to 1994 the Russian Church Abroad
itself was in Eucharistic communion with the Romanian Old Calendar Church, but
not with the Bulgarian and Greek Churches, which, for their part, at that same
time were in full ecclesiastical communion with the Romanian Church.
The third and final point of the
Resolution is the most grievous. It is true that in it the expression
“cessation of Eucharistic communion,” as it is recorded in the official journal
of ROCOR Tserkovnaya Zhizn (Nos. 3–4, May–June–July–August 2006, p. 22),
is softened by the diplomatic expression “suspension of concelebration.” But
this latter wording introduces even greater lack of clarity and vagueness into
the meaning of the entire third point. First, the word “suspension” signifies
the cessation of a given action for a certain, usually not very long, period of
time. Yet in the context of this expression, there is no clear and concrete
mention whatsoever of the prospect either of the resumption or of the
definitive termination of Eucharistic communion. More precisely, the chosen
wording gently and covertly points precisely to this latter prospect. But why
was this not stated directly and clearly? Second, the Moscow Patriarchate, with
which the Russian Church Abroad has established Eucharistic communion (only the
technical time until the moment of its implementation remains), considers the
Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches to be “non-canonical groups.”
Thus, for example, Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) speaks of Eucharistic
communion “in which the Russian Church Abroad is, at least formally, with
non-canonical groups that have separated for various reasons from other Local
Orthodox Churches and that act, in particular, on the canonical territory of
the Romanian, Bulgarian, and Greek Churches.” [2] Moreover, the representatives
of the Church Abroad themselves, members of this Church’s Commission for
negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, in the course of the negotiating
process refer to our Churches as “groups.” In the journal Tserkovnaya Zhizn
(Nos. 5–6, 2005, p. 14), it is stated: “Fr. Alexander: Reads the point on
question No. 3 from the Protocol of the 5th session, in which is set forth the
proposal to break our Eucharistic communion with the Old Calendar Greek,
Romanian, and Bulgarian groups, because of their non-acceptance of our possible
Eucharistic communion with the MP. It was decided to submit this proposal for
consideration at the next Council of Bishops in 2006.” As a result, it turns
out that the Holy Synod of the Russian Church Abroad does not have an
unambiguous qualification of the ecclesiological status of the Romanian and
Bulgarian Old Calendar Churches, which in this “transitional period” are
referred to sometimes as Churches, sometimes as groups. At the same time, the
Holy Synod of the Russian Church Abroad has already confirmed the Act of
Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, which unequivocally and
categorically considers our Churches to be “non-canonical groups.” In such a
case, how will the Russian Church Abroad regard us in the near future? We were
for her sister Churches. Now, from her point of view, we are at times Churches,
at times groups, and after some time, in all likelihood, we shall appear in her
eyes as nothing more and nothing less than “schismatics, being outside
communion with the Orthodox Local Churches”! Third, in view of all that has
been said, the conclusion of the Resolution concerning the preservation of
fraternal relations with our two Churches, with the so-called suspension of
concelebration with us and with the indicated ecclesiological ambiguity, is
altogether incomprehensible.”
3. It is difficult for me to
understand the following statement as well in the letter sent to me: “We do not
intend in any way to retreat from our witness to true Orthodoxy before the
whole world, and we shall continue to condemn pernicious ecumenism and modernism.”
If ecumenism is indeed “pernicious” and if it is subject to condemnation, how
then is one to explain the conjunction of this position with the establishment
of Eucharistic communion with the ecumenical leadership of the Moscow
Patriarchate? Especially given that precisely because of ecumenism certain
hierarchs and a great number of clergy and faithful within the Patriarchate
itself are increasingly categorically in disagreement with it.
4. In the synodal letter the
following is mentioned: “We have become acquainted with certain of your
statements concerning the process of the restoration of unity in the Russian
Church.” Further, after the assertion that “we cannot but agree with the following
of your words, recently published,” there are cited quotations from my
conversations with our parishioners, published on the Internet in translation
into the Russian language. After this list of quotations, the following thought
is expressed: “Precisely in connection with these your statements, we consider
it a duty of our conscience to fraternally warn you that the leaders of the
‘opposition’ to the process of reconciliation are precisely those fanatically
disposed people who do not accept your balanced and moderate position and who
deny the presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate.” I would not wish to
qualify the criterion according to which the aforementioned quotations were
selected. However, if the “fanatically disposed people” do not accept the
thoughts of mine cited in the synodal letter, then it is evident that your
Synod does not accept the thoughts in that same text of mine which were
diplomatically passed over by the composer of the letter, and which stand in
organic unity of meaning with the quotations contained in the letter.
5. Allow me to note the
incorrectness of the following expression in the synodal letter: “And the one
who heads this opposition, the bishop Agafangel, suspended from priestly
service, is precisely one of the bishops hastily and imprudently ordained, whom
you condemn.” In my published text I speak critically of the practice of hasty
ordinations; however, I in no way examine individual instances of such
ordinations nor do I name particular persons. I would not have permitted myself
such concretization. In particular, I said: “For the hierarchs of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of the first émigré generation the following
was characteristic: they did not ordain hastily and imprudently — which,
unfortunately, occurred in recent times also under Metropolitan Vitaly — they
never ordained any cleric to the episcopacy without due consideration, but
always after careful investigation.”
6. Concerning the sorrowful
events in the life of the Russian Church Abroad after May 17 and the request
sent to me “not to enter into contact with such ‘oppositionists,’ who only
discredit the witness to Orthodoxy and attempt to create a schismatic structure
under the guise of ‘preserving’ the original Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia.” I strive, to the extent of my strength and possibilities, to follow
attentively these events in the life of the Russian Church Abroad from the
point of view of the position of our Bulgarian Old Calendar Orthodox Church. We
discuss the complex and truly tragic situation together with our Greek and
Romanian brethren. We pray to the Lord that we may be guided by a peaceable and
humble spirit, by readiness to sacrifice everything purely human for the sake
of attaining ecclesiastical peace and unity, but at the same time also by the
striving to stand firmly as guardians of Orthodoxy and by the resolute
rejection of all compromises in matters of our holy Faith. “You physicians,”
writes St. Basil the Great to the physician Eustathius, “do not desire to
cauterize the sick man or to cause him suffering in any other way, yet you
consent to this, following the demands of the disease. Seafarers likewise do
not willingly cast their cargo overboard, but in order to avoid shipwreck they
endure the throwing out of the cargo, preferring life in poverty to death.
Therefore, you must also consider that we endure the separation painfully and
with many tears <…>, we endure it, however, because for those who love
the truth nothing is preferable to God and to hope in Him.” (Ep. 262, 2, 19–22
[976A]).
May the Lord help us all to think
and to act responsibly, honestly, and selflessly in that which is pleasing to
Him and brings true benefit to His holy Church!
With pain and love in Christ, the
sincere well-wisher of Your Eminence,
† Bishop Photii
FOOTNOTES
1. See: http://www.synodinresistance.org/Administration_en/R1a4009Syn412Rus.pdf
2. Report of
Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad on questions of relations with
the Russian Church Abroad and the Old Ritualists, cited from Bishop Alexander
(Mileant), “I believe that time and the grace of God will heal the Russian
Church from the wounds inflicted upon her by the godless authority.” (Epistle
to the clergy and flock) —
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/documents/ep_vlalexander.html
Russian
source: https://bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/ch-life/official/photii_rocorsynod2007-07-14.htm#2b
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.