Of Truth and Falsehood: Allegations of the “OCA” against ROCOR and Response from the Holy Mountain (1991)

Source: Living Orthodoxy, #75, Vol. XIII, No. 3, May-June 1991 (actual release March 1992), pp. 12-14.

 

Last fall, a portion of an official press release, sent to several hundred outlets in the secular press, fell into the hands of an attentive and inquisitive layman of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Being fairly knowledgeable in Church affairs, it seemed to him that its allegations were improbable... so he took the course of writing letters to several of the abbots of the Holy Mountain to inquire what had really transpired. The press release and the most interesting responses to date are reproduced in the sidebars.

 

 

FROM A PRESS RELEASE DATED 31 OCTOBER 1991
ON THE LETTERHEAD OF THE
OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
OF THE “ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA”:

“Mount Athos and the Russian Church in Exile”

[Karyes, Mt. Athos] In an official letter addressed to the late ecumenical patriarch Dimitrios, and signed by all the hegoumens of the twenty monasteries of Mt. Athos (Koine Synaxis), the “Russian church-in-exile” is called “schismatic” and “deprived of grace.” They categorically call “deceit” the information according to which, some spiritual authorities are giving support to the “schism”. Specific condemnation is voiced against the “Church-in-exile” for establishing communities in Russia, where the canonical Russian Church [The Moscow Patriarchate—ed.] is the only recognized Orthodox.

The letter was issued on the occasion of the announcement that kathegoumenon Ephrem, of the Philotheou monastery on Mt. Athos, who had joined the “Church-in-exile.” Indeed, some sources of that church indicated that he might be consecrated bishop.

Facing the express condemnation of the authorities of Mt. Athos, Fr. Ephrem repented, and returned to the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate.

One of the complaints frequently voiced by the “Church-in-exile” is the use of the Revised Julian calendar by most Orthodox churches. The monasteries of Mt. Athos, which prefer to use the old calendar obviously do not share that view and remain in full communion not only with their bishop, the ecumenical patriarchate (who uses the new calendar), but with the entire Orthodox Church as well.

The foregoing is reproduced in its entirety from page 3 of the aforementioned press release, with all factual and grammatical errors left intact. See main text body for comment on specific allegations.

***

We of course do not have access (at least not yet) to the official documents which passed from the Koine Synaxis of the Holy Mountain to the Ecumenical Patriarchate... but it must be presumed from the content of the press release that it at least claims to be based upon those documents (rather than upon hearsay concerning their content).

Charitably, we might assume that the officials responsible for the promulgation of the press release were in ignorance of the mechanics of the minutes of the Koine Synaxis. At best, however, this would be seriously culpable ignorance. Anyone making such allegations has a responsibility to be certain of their accuracy.

However, the nature and content of the release leave little room for charity... especially when contrasted with the truth of the matter... and the more so in the light of the verbal refusal of Fr. Gregory Havrilak (whose name was given on the release as the source for “more information”), after having seen Abbot Theophanis’ letter, to undertake in any way to issue a corrective release.

The alternative to such a charitable construction is not pleasant. While the sphere of electoral political advertising abounds with such willful lying (or half-lying, in accordance with the dictates of the libel-specialist lawyers), it is certainly wholly out of place—and especially in the domain of the Church, and calls into question not only the Orthodoxy but indeed the very claim to the name “Christian” of those who would perpetrate it.

As is clearly to be seen from Abbot Theophanis’ letter, it is questionable whether even a simple majority of the abbots of the Holy Mountain held views compatible with the phrases “schismatic” and “deprived of divine grace” (quoted, in any case, without their accompanying context... so we don’t really know what was entered in the minutes at all). Certainly, whatever the minutes said, they were by no means “signed by all the hegoumenos of the twenty monasteries.”

We have, of course, no knowledge of who the “some sources” might be who “indicated that [Fr. Ephrem] might be consecrated bishop... but doubtless one could find “some sources” to claim almost anything imaginable!

Indisputably, Fr. Ephrem first petitioned the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to be received under its jurisdiction. This petition was accepted. Later, under enormous pressures only partly known to us, he rescinded his decision and returned to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Tragically, this led to much spiritual confusion for many. In a letter of 1/14 July 1991, he apologized and begged forgiveness for this confusion.

[See: https://orthodoxmiscellany.blogspot.com/2024/10/why-did-elder-ephraim-of-arizona-leave.html]

It is, of course, arguable whether “most Orthodox Churches” use the “Revised Julian calendar”... indeed, even whether such a statement is true even in the overwhelmingly modernist environment of North America. In any event, the question of the calendar is only one of the less critical (albeit most conspicuous) of the grounds upon which the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia refrains from communion with most of the Orthodox jurisdictions of the world—far more critical are matters of ecumenism and general compromise of the Faith with heterodoxy and modernism.

Parenthetically, it is necessary as well to note, à propos of the letter of Abbot Theophanis, that the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, accepted by Abbot Theophanis, that it and it alone has the “right” to grant autocephaly, is inconsistent with the conciliar nature of Orthodox Christianity and smacks of papism—and is of course not accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

* * *

 

 

A LETTER DATED 12/31/91
IN RESPONSE TO MICHAEL WOERL’S INQUIRY,
FROM ARCHIMANDRITE THEOPHANIS
(ARCHIMANDRITE EPHREM’S SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE),
ON THE OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD OF PHILOTHEOU MONASTERY:

Dear Mr. Woerl:

In reply to your letter dated 19 Nov./2 Dec. 1991 we send you the following information: The encyclical that you have sent us, published by the O.C.A., unfortunately does not accurately express the Holy Mountain’s views concerning the subject which you are inquiring about.

We will briefly explain to you the conditions under which the decisions of the Holy Community are ratified. The Iera (or Koine) Synaxis is considered to be in quorum, when 2/3 of its members are in attendance, in other words fourteen representatives. Decisions are taken by majority ballot. All out-going decisions of the Holy Community are not signed by each individual representative, but are rather authorized using the following form: “All of the Koine Synaxi’s representatives and council members of the twenty Holy Monasteries of the Holy Mountain of Athos.” Under no circumstances may a representative refuse to sign the minutes of the synaxis. He has the right though to have his opinion entered in the minutes. Therefore the representative must sign the minutes, even if he is in opposition with the decision or decisions taken.

As for the condemnations mentioned in the official letter of the Iera Synaxis addressed to the late Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios we make known to you the following:

The Holy Monastery of Esfigmenou was taken over by zealot fathers some years ago, and lives isolated from the rest of the Holy Mountain, having absolutely nothing to do with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. They of course never send a representative to the Iera Synaxis. Therefore no matter what decisions are taken there can only be at the most nineteen votes. As for the decisions taken in the synaxis mentioned in the encyclical of the O.C.A., a total of four monasteries had an altogether different opinion. The Holy Monasteries of Xeropotamou and Karakallou discreetly disagreed, and at the same time leaving it to be understood that they would defend the Elder Ephraim, if he was to be deposed. The substitute representative for the Holy Monastery of Philotheou strongly protested, submitting upon the signing of the minutes his defence in writing of the Elder Ephraim, and his defence and recognition of the Russian Church Abroad. Finally, his written statement was not entered in the minutes even though it is the inalienable right of each monastery according to the twenty-second paragraph of the charter of the Holy Mountain. The abbot of the Holy Monastery of Konstamonitou, along with the representative of the same monastery, left the Iera Synaxis in a show of protest, without signing the minutes. The abbot of the Holy Monastery of Chilandar confessed, at least during the first day of the proceedings, that between the ranks of the clergy of the Serbian Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad, there exists ecclesiastic communion. This statement was altogether omitted from the minutes. Besides the Serbian Patriarchate, it is well known that the Russian Church Abroad is also in ecclesiastic communion with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as was mentioned by the representative of the Holy Monastery of Karakallou.

The abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Paul did not agree with what the Elder Ephrem did, yet he was heard to have said the following: “I cannot judge or condemn anyone.” Surprisingly, this statement was also omitted from the minutes. Not a word was heard from the Holy Monasteries of Zografou and St. Panteleimon during the proceedings. They did not voice their opinion. As for the rumors concerning the Elder Ephraim being consecrated, nothing could be so groundless and far from the truth.

As far as the “autocephaly” of the O.C.A. is concerned, since it was not issued by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as only the Ecumenical Patriarchate possesses the right to issue a tome of autocephaly, or at least recognized officially by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, its autocephaly is unsubstantial. The answer to your last question [concerning the status of the “O.C.A.” on the Holy Mountain—ed.] is no; for the aforementioned reasons the clergy of the O.C.A. may not serve in any of the monasteries on Mount Athos, nor may partake in Holy Communion.

The Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Philotheou
Archimandrite Theophanis

* * *

And… From Xeropotamou Monastery

Dear brother in Christ, Mr. Woerl:

I don’t regard the ROCOR as “schismatic” and “deprived of divine grace”, and I think the same [as] do most of the abbots of Mt. Athos. The document you talked about was not signed by the twenty abbots. It was issued by the Holy Community, a body of 19 representatives, who also didn’t sign it. A stamp and a typewritten phrase is the signature. It was a product of pressures and servility. Please pray to God for me, and stand stable where you are.

With blessings and love in Christ,
Archimandrite Joseph

 

Scans of the OCA press release and Athonite letter to Mr. Michael Woerl were published in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. IX (1992), Nos. 2-3, pp. 20-21.