Answered by Bishop Hilarion of Manhattan
Sunday of the
Myrrh-bearing Women, 1992
1. Are there any objections
from the Synodal people (laity, priests, bishops) against involvement in Russia
[that is, establishing parishes]?
Some of the laity naively believe
that since Russia is "free," there are no reasons preventing
unification with the Moscow Patriarchate. A few members of the clergy hold this
same opinion (the most notable among them were suspended and, as a result, left
our Church and joined the Autocephalous Church of America). All the bishops
feel that they made the right decision by admitting into the hierarchy those
who refuse to enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. The laity
uncomfortable with our ecclesiological position are mostly those who have not
taken the time to study the nature and actions of the Moscow Patriarchate and
who have closed their ears to our hierarchical warnings over the past decades.
It is likely that they place primary emphasis on nationalism rather than on
what contributes to the well-being of the Church. It is impossible to provide
even an approximate percentage of ROCOR members holding this opinion. I would
estimate 5% of our parishioners in total.
2. Are all catacomb churches
in favor of or supportive of the Synod’s presence in Russia? If not, why?
Not all catacomb communities have
responded favorably to our initiatives. Their negative reaction is primarily
caused by the fact that we did not agree to immediately recognize all of them
as a legitimate church hierarchy. Many small groups that make up the Catacomb
Church do not have hierarchs with (full) valid apostolic succession. We
proposed to supplement their ordinations through cheirothesia, as we did
for Metropolitan Kallistos of Corinth and Metropolitan Epiphanios of Cyprus in
the early 1970s. However, most groups perceived this as an insult to their life
under persecution and the struggle they endured, and they preferred to continue
their ministry as before, disregarding the deficiencies in their ordinations.
Additionally, some object to our refusal to declare the Moscow Patriarchate
devoid of grace.
3. Why was the 1984 [sic:
1983] anathema written?
The text of the anathema was
composed at the Holy Transfiguration Monastery and submitted to Bishop Gregory
[Grabbe] with a proposal to include it in the Rite of Orthodoxy. The text of
the anathema was translated from English into Church Slavonic and delivered to
the Hierarchical Synod for discussion.
4. Why was it later removed?
The anathema was not removed,
although this fabrication is often propagated by enemies of ROCOR. All the
bishops of our Church agree that, as defined by the anathema, ecumenism is a
heresy, but not all were satisfied with the wording of the text composed by
Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Some bishops realized that the text of the
anathema would not be officially accepted until their objections were addressed
(for example, some felt that the style of the anathema was too convoluted and
obscured its meaning). Bishop Gregory, who was then the Secretary of the Synod,
decided that the text of the anathema had been accepted and published it in our
Church journal. The result of this fait accompli was that a number of
bishops refused to include the anathema in the Rite of Orthodoxy...
<...> In any case, the
heresy of the "branch theory" is anathematized by our hierarchs.
However, as with other anathemas, we do not engage in ostentatious displays of
anathematizing before those to whom it may apply.
5. What are its practical
application and effects?
As Archbishop Vitaly [Ustinov] of
Montreal stated at the time when the anathema was first used, the purpose of
this anathema, first and foremost, is to emphasize to our own flock that this
false concept of the essence of the Church is a heresy and must be avoided at
all costs. Regarding how it affects those who belong to other Orthodox
Churches, he believes that they will be judged according to their attitude
toward this anathema. The fundamental difference lies in how ROCOR views and
applies this anathema compared to the more fanatical among the Greek Old
Calendarists. We see the anathema as a means of calling the erring to the Holy
Church by pointing out their errors, while the more extreme Greeks treat it as
a mechanism for excluding others from the Church.
6. Was there any response from
other jurisdictions to Metropolitan Philaret’s Sorrowful Epistle?
According to our information, no
response or acknowledgment was received from the hierarchs to whom the epistle
was addressed, although Alexander Schmemann of the OCA wrote what he considered
to be a rebuttal to one of the epistles, which was published in the quarterly
journal of St. Vladimir’s Seminary.
7. Is anything
(inter-jurisdictional) permitted at various levels: for the laity, lower
clergy, higher clergy?
The general principle remains in
effect: communion with Orthodox groups involved in the ecumenical movement is
not permitted. Of course, bishops may, in individual cases, apply the principle
of economia if they believe it will benefit the Church or the people.
Priests must not violate the general principle without the permission of a
bishop. However, there are cases where priests act unilaterally and cause
scandals. This in no way negates the general principle.
8. Why is there so little
education on the issue of ecumenism? Will anything change in this regard?
There is no standard approach to
educating the flock in ROCOR. Letters are sent to all parishes for priests to
read to the laity. Articles are published in church periodicals. If ecumenism
has not been particularly emphasized among the other heresies surrounding the
Church in these sorrowful times, it is because we are focused on the lower
clergy and laity, for whom this issue is not as pressing as it is for other
Orthodox Churches infected with the poison of ecumenism. As for changing the
ways and means of educating the flock, this would require significant effort on
the part of church authorities. I must admit that I cannot foresee significant
changes in this area.
9. Position regarding grace in
the New Calendar Churches
When the New Calendar began to be
introduced in the 1930s and <...>, ROCOR, although it actively and
vocally opposed the innovation, did not break communion with the Churches that
adopted the New Calendar. Here in America, in the 1950s, ROCOR maintained warm
and cordial relations with the Antiochian Church (for example, Archbishop
Vitaly [Maximenko] participated in the consecration of Metropolitan Antony
[Bashir] of the Antiochian Church). We have never stated or implied that the
adoption of the Western Calendar deprives any Church of grace. It is our
conviction that while the New Calendar is a regrettable break with the Church
of the past, it nevertheless does not pertain to core dogmas or Church
theology, as it would in the case of heresy. Metropolitans Antony
(Khrapovitsky) and Anastasy (Gribanovsky), both of whom were profound
theologians, used their influence in the Eastern Churches to oppose the
introduction of the New Calendar; otherwise, they would have recognized it as a
heresy.
10. Is it possible to
recognize that our people, belonging to the Synod, are allowed to receive
Communion in New Calendar churches? We have heard this has occurred in Atlanta.
Has the Russian Synod worldwide ceased concelebration with New Calendarists, or
have New Calendarists stopped receiving Communion in the churches of the Synod?
The general principle is that our
Church advises its members not to receive Communion in parishes of churches
involved in the ecumenical movement, regardless of whether they use the Old or
New Calendar. In individual cases, a bishop may, applying the principle of economia,
allow his spiritual children to partake of Communion in such parishes, but such
permission is given strictly on an individual basis. ROCOR did not immediately
break Eucharistic communion with the churches that adopted the New Calendar, as
noted in the answer to question 9. Today, we are in communion with the Serbian
Patriarchate and the Church of Jerusalem. The Serbian Church, in response to
our concerns, assured our bishops that, despite being a member of the World
Council of Churches (WCC), its hierarchs firmly reject the "branch
theory" of the Church and believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true
Church of Christ, adding that their participation in the WCC is based on
practical, political, and social matters. Our bishops take them at their word.
If the situation changes
drastically for the worse, we will, of course, reassess our position. Here, we
must emphasize that mere membership in the WCC is insufficient to brand someone
as an ecumenist or to place a church outside the One Church of Christ—this is
determined by what each individual says and does at WCC conferences. We have
not established a specific policy regarding whether to permit or prohibit the
sacraments for members of New Calendar churches. Each bishop independently
decides how best to handle such cases. Furthermore, even in dioceses where the
policy is clearly defined—such as denying Communion to New Calendarists—there
are still instances of economia.
11. Are there any changes in
the Synod's policy toward Moscow dissidents?
No. We continue to support church
dissidents in their stand against the abuses in their political and social
systems, as well as against the Moscow Patriarchate. We provide them with
information that clarifies our position, hoping that they will adopt our way of
thinking. Dissidents from the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, even when they
verbally support the Synod, are not permitted to concelebrate with us.
12. What are the conditions
necessary for achieving union with the Moscow Patriarchate?
ROCOR has set forth four
conditions that must be met before negotiations for union can begin. We list
them here, and the order of listing does not necessarily reflect the importance
of each:
1. The Moscow Patriarchate must
acknowledge that its statements, so often made over the past decades, about the
absence of religious persecution under the Soviet regime, were blatant lies
intended to conceal the true beastly nature of the communist state. As a
demonstration of its sincerity in this acknowledgment, it must canonize all the
new martyrs of the Bolshevik persecutions.
2. The Moscow Patriarchate must
renounce and condemn the harmful policy of Sergianism as foreign and
destructive to the Church.
3. The Moscow Patriarchate must
withdraw from active participation in the ecumenical movement.
4. All hierarchs and priests of
the Moscow Patriarchate who have allowed themselves to serve merely as pawns of
the KGB, betraying the Holy Church and their flock for position and worldly
power, must publicly repent, acknowledge their crimes, and, as a sign of their
true repentance, withdraw from active participation in the governance of the
Church.
When these conditions are
accepted by representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate <...>, whom we
admit, then we will sit down and discuss how union can best be achieved.
13. Concelebrations and
Ordinations
Our stance toward the Serbs
corresponds to what is expressed in the answer to question 10. Suffice it to
say that relations with the Serbian Church can be in a state of constant flux.
Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, who received advanced theological
education at the Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade, holds a
high opinion of the Serbian Church. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to sever
all relations with Serbian Bishop Lavrentije when the latter served as bishop
in Germany and even accepted one or more Serbian parishes under his omophorion
due to the flagrant uncanonical actions of that Serbian hierarch. Additionally,
the new Serbian Patriarch Pavle recently participated in a meeting of the heads
of autocephalous churches under the chairmanship of Patriarch Bartholomew of
Constantinople, during which a joint resolution was adopted. This resolution
contains a subtly veiled condemnation of ROCOR as well as the Greek and
Romanian Old Calendarists. Further clarification on this matter is necessary.
14. Position regarding the
Icon of the Trinity
ROCOR has not issued an official
ruling on the permissibility or impermissibility of depicting God the Father,
the First Person of the Holy Trinity. About ten years ago, a critical article
by those opposed to such depictions was published in the unofficial section of
the Church Life newspaper (in Russian). However, this reflected nothing
more than the opinion of the editorial leadership at that time, rather than a
decisive stance by the hierarchy as a whole. No hierarch of our Church has ever
issued a ruling stating that the iconographic depiction of the First Person of
the Trinity is necessary. On the contrary, there is a growing awareness among
the clergy that such depictions are not in line with mainstream Orthodox
theology. It is hoped that, over time, such icons will be removed, replaced, or
reinterpreted so that the figure depicted with a white beard and white hair on
such icons will be identified with the mystical image of Christ, the Ancient of
Days, rather than with God the Father. This depiction has been accepted for
centuries in the East and in the Russian Church, despite the opinions of the
Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and the prohibitions of later
councils. Overall, it is deemed unlikely that there will be an abandonment of
this depiction in the near future.
15. With whom is the St.
Herman Brotherhood now?
The St. Herman Brotherhood left
ROCOR when canonical accusations were brought against its abbot, Fr. Herman
(Podmoshensky), by members of his community and spiritual children, and when he
refused to respond to these accusations. He came under the omophorion of
Metropolitan Pangratios, <...> of questionable reputation. Bishop
Pangratios has no connection with the Greek Old Calendarist churches.
16. Concelebrations with New
Calendarists?
<...> Concelebrations with
the clergy of Orthodox churches involved in ecumenism do not take place.
17. Position regarding various
Old Calendarist jurisdictions
ROCOR was deeply disappointed by
the failure of its attempts to bring peace and unity to the ongoing divisions
among factions of the Greek Old Calendarist movement, and the fanaticism of
some of these groups rendered its mediatory efforts futile. Consequently, there
has been no official communion between our hierarchs and clergy since this
decision was made in the late 1970s. Laity from Greek Old Calendarist
jurisdictions are admitted to the chalice by us, but instances of
concelebration, if they have occurred, are exceptions to the rule. ROCOR
maintains close (though unofficial) ties with the hierarchs of Archbishop
Chrysostom [Kiousis] of Athens. There has been no communion with the
Matthewites since the last Metropolitan Callistos of Corinth left their jurisdiction
due to their irreconcilable and provocative attitude toward us.
18. Why is ecumenical activity
allowed for the clergy?
Our Church does not approve of
participation in the ecumenical movement. However, there have been regrettable
instances where individual priests, recklessly, became involved in situations
that caused scandal. Since the clergy acted in these cases out of ignorance or
misunderstanding of the significance of their actions, these matters were
addressed privately by their bishops. Our clergy neither support nor accept the
"branch theory" of the Church. There are no individuals among them
whom the Fathers of the Church would consider heretics. It should be remembered
that such violations of our general principle can occasionally occur within the
Church without causing the loss of Her grace, especially if the bishops oppose
ecumenical activities.
Synodal Seal
Signature of Bishop Hilarion
Russian source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180220033659/https://slovo-archipastyria.narod.ru/index/0-4
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.