MP Commentator: On the 20th Anniversary of ROCOR’s “Suspension” of Eucharistic Communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarists

Alexey Rodinov | September 6, 2026

 

 

On September 6, 2006, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR adopted a resolution suspending communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist Churches. I will quote from the book by Andrei Kostryukov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, published in 2024, “History of the Russian Church Abroad (1920–2007): A Textbook”:

The severance of ROCOR’s communion with the Old Calendarist groups in Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania was one of the principal conditions set by the Moscow Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarchate’s commission proposed that the Church Abroad approach the hierarchy of the Old Calendarist communities with a proposal to reconsider their relations with the Local Churches in whose territories they operated and to begin negotiations on communion. For its part, the Moscow Patriarchate was prepared to appeal to the heads of the Local Churches to enter into negotiations in a spirit of economia. The letter drafted by ROCOR was approved at the meetings of the commissions and sent to the addressees. No reply was received—the Old Calendarist groups’ opposition to the negotiations between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR was well known. Moreover, the problem in the relations between the Old Calendarist groups and their respective Local Churches concerned not only, and not so much, the calendar as ecumenism and modernism.

Since 2001, the Greek “Synod in Resistance” under Metropolitan Cyprian (Koutsoumbas) had repeatedly addressed ROCOR with objections to its rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate. After negotiations began in 2004, Metropolitan Laurus’s name was removed from the diptychs of the “Synod in Resistance,” and in October 2005 it adopted a decision “to sever ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia completely and decisively.” However, this decision was communicated to the Church Abroad only on December 5, 2005. For its part, on December 8, 2005, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR decided to suspend communion with the “Synod in Resistance” pending a decision on the matter by the Council of Bishops. The question of continued communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarists also needed to be resolved. It was psychologically difficult for the leadership of the Russian Church Abroad to sever relations with them. (Kostryukov, A. A. History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1920–2007: A Textbook. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2024, pp. 418–419.)

At its regular meeting held in New York from February 21 to 23, 2006, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR adopted, among others, the following resolution:

Having heard the report of Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, secretary of the commission for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate, His Eminence the President and the Right Reverend members of the Synod of Bishops expressed satisfaction with the work accomplished by this commission during the intervening period, as well as gratitude to its members for their labors. The Synod of Bishops decided to express special gratitude to Mitred Archpriest George Larin and Ekaterina Yuryevna Larina and their assistants for their labors and efforts in arranging the latest joint meeting of the church commissions, held at the Church of the Protection of the Mother of God in Nyack.

On February 21 [2006], the Synod of Bishops considered the latest letter from Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili and the Holy “Synod in Resistance,” which announced that their Holy Synod had resolved to terminate completely and decisively all ecclesiastical communion with the Russian Church Abroad. According to this letter, the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, “was removed from the diptychs” last year. In view of this, the Synod of Bishops resolved to recognize communion with the “Synod in Resistance,” presided over by Metropolitan Cyprian, as severed. The Primates of the Old Calendarist Churches of Romania and Bulgaria will be informed of this through a clergyman of the Russian Church Abroad dispatched for this purpose. (Source)

On April 20, 2006, an official report on this trip to Romania and Bulgaria appeared on the official website of the ROCOR Synod. But since Archpriest Alexander Lebedev knows neither the local languages nor the realities of church life in Romania and Bulgaria, I had to make corrections to the text, rectifying obvious errors in names and place names, adjusting the style here and there, and adding explanations [in square brackets]:

In accordance with a resolution of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev was sent to Romania and Bulgaria for official meetings with the Primates of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist Churches. On the way, at the direction of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev visited Switzerland, where he met with His Grace Bishop Ambrose [Cantacuzène] of Vevey and gave His Grace a detailed report on the progress of negotiations with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Mitred Archpriest Alexander Lebedev arrived in Romania on Monday, April 10 [2006], where he was met at Bucharest Airport by Archimandrite Cyprian, abbot of the Old Calendarist monastery in Galata [a historic district of the city of Iași]. From there they traveled to the Moldavian region of Romania, to the town of Fălticeni, arriving that evening at the home of the local parish priest, Archpriest Vasile Sandu. After viewing the very beautiful church, Mitred Archpriest Alexander and those accompanying him went to the rector’s house, where His Eminence Metropolitan Vlasie [Mogârzan], Primate of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church, arrived shortly afterward.

The meeting with Metropolitan Vlasie, conducted through Archimandrite Cyprian as interpreter, who has a good command of English, lasted almost four hours and took place in a spirit of respect and mutual understanding. Mitred Archpriest Alexander acquainted His Eminence with the contents of the letter addressed to him by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and signed by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and heard his response, which expressed the position of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church. The rector of Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles answered His Eminence Metropolitan Vlasie’s questions about the work of the commissions conducting negotiations between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Metropolitan Vlasie asked that his gratitude be conveyed to His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad for approaching him through a personal representative of the Synod of Bishops, and said that he would soon send an official reply to their letter. A second official meeting, this time with other members of the Synod of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church participating, was scheduled for the following morning, Tuesday, April 11, at Slătioara Monastery.

During the day, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, accompanied by Archimandrite Cyprian, visited several parish churches in Romanian Moldavia, as well as the Convent of the Protection of the Mother of God in Brădățel, where he met with the superior, Abbess Barbara. He also met that day with two other hierarchs of the Romanian Old Calendarist Church, Bishops Pahomie [Morar] and Demostene [Ioniță]. On the way back to Bucharest, Father Alexander and Father Cyprian passed an enormous equestrian monument to the Russian general Suvorov, who is greatly revered in Romania.

Arriving in Bucharest late that evening, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to attend the nighttime service at the Old Calendarist monastery of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, where, according to the typikon, the Midnight Office and Matins begin at precisely midnight. On the morning of Wednesday, April 12, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to tour the monastery and its working facilities. The monastery has a workshop for cutting and polishing marble and granite, fully equipped with modern machinery. The monks produce components for churches under construction, as well as cemetery monuments.

At midday, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev took a short flight from Romania to Bulgaria, where he was met at Sofia Airport by the rassophore monk Panteleimon. Father Alexander was touched to see that a large building at the airport exit bore the Church Slavonic word “Mitnitsa.” This is the local customs office, where, evidently, “publicans” continue to work to this day.

Upon arriving at the episcopal residence on the outskirts of Sofia, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev was welcomed by His Grace Bishop Photii [Siromahov] of Triaditsa, Primate of the Bulgarian Old Calendarist Church, who speaks excellent Russian. The formal discussion was scheduled for the following morning. There were, however, several opportunities to speak with Bishop Photii informally. During the official meeting on Thursday, April 13, the secretary of the commission for negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate read aloud and delivered the letter addressed to His Grace Bishop Photii by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and signed by His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and listened to Bishop Photii’s thoughts on its contents.

The meeting with His Grace Bishop Photii took place in a spirit of sincerity and mutual understanding. His Grace Bishop Photii expressed his gratitude to His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad for approaching him through a personal representative of the Synod of Bishops. He asked that it be conveyed that he would closely follow the decisions of the forthcoming Fourth All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia immediately following it, on the basis of which he would make his own decision.

In the afternoon, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to visit some of the sights of the Bulgarian capital, including the Russian Orthodox Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. In the crypt of this exceptionally beautiful prerevolutionary church lies the tomb of the ever-memorable Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev), who reposed in blessedness in 1950. Archbishop Seraphim is deeply venerated among the Bulgarian people, and crowds come every day to pray at his tomb and leave little notes with their prayer requests.

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev also had the opportunity to visit Bulgaria’s principal church—the Cathedral of St. Alexander Nevsky, built as a memorial church to the Russian people and especially to Tsar Alexander II, the Liberator. The cathedral stands on the central square, opposite an enormous equestrian monument to Tsar Alexander II, at the foot of which is a large inscription: “To the Tsar Liberator, from Grateful Bulgaria.” The main street itself is called “Tsar Osvoboditel Boulevard” [Boulevard of the Tsar Liberator]. In the crypt of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral is a magnificent permanent exhibition of Bulgarian icons and church furnishings dating from the tenth century to recent times.

Archpriest Alexander Lebedev had the opportunity to attend services at the monastery attached to the episcopal residence, as well as at the large Old Calendarist Cathedral [of the Dormition] in Sofia. After the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on Friday, April 14, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev set out on his return journey via London to Los Angeles, arriving in time for the All-Night Vigil on the eve of Palm Sunday. (Source)

Note that Archpriest Alexander Lebedev merely “visited” and “was present” at services in Romania and Bulgaria, but never once concelebrated. In other words, communion had already been severed de facto by that point. There was, however, no talk yet of contacts with the New Calendarist Romanian and Bulgarian Churches. Bishop Photii (Siromahov) spoke about this meeting in November 2006 in far less diplomatic terms:

Unfortunately, the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate proceeded entirely along a single track, on a basis wholly unacceptable from the standpoint of a consistent and principled Orthodox ecclesial consciousness. I stated this in an appropriate manner, but quite openly, to the official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev, who visited our Church in April of this year to inform us officially of the progress of the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. It is obvious that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia itself will break off relations with us, perhaps without even announcing this officially: only yesterday we were, in its eyes, a sister Church with which it enjoyed full ecclesiastical communion, while tomorrow we will be, in its eyes, a sectarian, schismatic gathering outside the Church, because it will enter into communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and, through it, with all the other Local Churches. We remain firm in our positions, while the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in the person of its hierarchy, is changing its position by 180 degrees. (Source)

In his letter to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated June 29, 2007, the tone was even sharper:

“As for me personally, during our official conversation, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev asked me directly how I viewed the possibility of heading an Old Calendarist diocese incorporating all our parishes, churches, and monasteries within the Bulgarian Patriarchate. I replied that such an approach was unacceptable to me in principle, since it transfers the logic of Latin uniatism onto Orthodox soil, especially since, for our Church, the criterion for establishing Eucharistic communion concerns the confession of faith and spiritual substance, rather than mere administrative form—as though our incorporation into a patriarchate engulfed in profound processes of apostasy would ipso facto transform us from ‘schismatics’ into ‘canonical members of the Church.’” (Source)

Meanwhile, in May 2006, the Fourth All-Diaspora Council took place, followed by the Council of Bishops of ROCOR, after which the restoration of Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate became inevitable. It is highly revealing that at the Fourth All-Diaspora Council there were not only no representatives of the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarist Churches, but not even [any mention] of them. They seemed to have been completely forgotten… And yet it remained unclear how to proceed with them. After all, one could hardly pretend that “nothing had happened” between 1992 and 2006! But the Synod of ROCOR had no intention of “repenting” of its ties with a “sectarian, schismatic gathering” either. Nor does it intend to do so even now.

Here I once again give the floor to Andrei Alexandrovich Kostryukov:

“Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev) proposed a way out. In June 2006, during a meeting with the commissions, he advised the Church Abroad not to announce a break with the Old Calendarist Churches, but to declare a suspension of communion with them until they regularized their relations with the Local Churches in their respective countries. The Synod of Bishops of ROCOR heeded this advice and, on September 6, 2006, adopted a resolution suspending communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist groups. Thus, one of the last obstacles on the path to unity with the Moscow Patriarchate was removed.” (Kostryukov, A. A. History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1920–2007: A Textbook. Moscow: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University Press, 2024, p. 419.)

It is particularly noteworthy that neither the Bulgarian nor the Romanian “Old Calendarist groups” were officially notified of this decision. Apparently, it was assumed that everyone read ROCOR’s official website. But, as it turned out, this was not the case: “By its decision of September 6/August 24, 2006, the Synod of ROCOR resolved to terminate ecclesiastical communion with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarist Orthodox Churches without notifying the Primate of the Bulgarian Old Calendarist Orthodox Church either in writing or orally. Bishop Photii learned of this act of the Synod of ROCOR almost six months later from other sources.” (Source). It is difficult even to say whether this was forgetfulness or deliberate distancing. In either case, however, it reveals an obvious lack of professionalism on the part of ROCOR’s Synodal Chancery.

Here is something else of interest that turned up about the Romanian Old Calendarists. This message was written in English by Archpriest Alexander Lebedev on May 8, 2008, in the private Yahoo group orthodox-tradition:

Perhaps it would be interesting to members of the list to note that the Romanian Old Calendarist Church under Metropolitan Vlasie has a very good relationship and long-standing with the Moscow Patriarchate -- in fact, by mutual agreement, all of the future Romanian Old Calendarist clergy receive their theological education at the Kishinev Seminary in Moldova, which is under the Moscow Patriarchate.

When I was sent by the Synod of Bishops in 2006 to meet with Metropolitan Vlasie, I met quite a number of priests and seminarians, who all had spent, or were spending five years at the Moscow Patriarchate Seminary in Moldavia (where all of the instruction is in Romanian).

During their Seminary years, they all participated fully in the life of the Seminary, receiving Holy Communion there, and, as is usual in Seminaries, in their final year, they were tonsured Reader by a bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate, and then would return to Romania and be ordained by Metropolitan Vlasie or another of his bishops and sent to serve in parishes.

This arrangement has been going on for years.

Metropolitan Kyrill of Smolensk, the Head of the Department of External Relations of the MP, told me that the Moscow Patriarchate thinks quite highly of the Romanian Old Calendarists, and respects them for their dedication to tradition (remember, the MP is staunchly Old Claendar [sic]), and their standing up against the ecumenical excesses of the Romanian Patriarchal Church.

It should also be remembered that the Moscow Patriarchate has extremely strained relations with the Romanian Patriarchal Church for another reason -- the Romanian Church has set up a parallel ecclesiastical structure in Moldova, which the Russian Church considers its canonical territory.  (Source)

It is a pity that the Romanian Old Calendarist Church lost its former sobriety of judgment and slid into Matthewism. Perhaps the reason is that, since opening in 1991, Chișinău Theological Seminary has never been distinguished by a high standard of education… Nevertheless, even after the official break, the two sides continued to correspond…

 

Russian source: https://rocor-observer.livejournal.com/484974.html