Subdeacon Vladimir
Kirillov (ROCOR-A) | February 22, 2013
Despite my sincere desire to
finally close the "Boston" topic, it is not yet possible to do so –
through collective efforts, additional facts, circumstances, and testimonies
come to light, which must be taken into consideration.
Nowadays, the name of Bishop
Gregory (Grabbe) is on the lips of many, and some even trust him more than
Metropolitan Vitaly. Therefore, it is necessary to pay close attention to
certain aspects of the activities of this eminent hierarch, who for many years
stood at the helm of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In particular, it is
worth examining, through the example of his Petition to the Council of Bishops,
his stance on the so-called Boston case. This is all the more relevant because
one of the commentators on my article ("Notes of a Layman on the Case of
Former Priest Victor Melehov") made, as he wrote, "an important
reminder that Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), who undoubtedly knew the Church canons
and the practice of their application in Church history better than anyone else
in the Diaspora, considered this 'defrocking' (of the Boston schismatics)
unlawful (and his position was no secret)."
In connection with this
statement, it will probably be interesting to familiarize oneself with Bishop
Gregory’s Petition to the Council of Bishops, in which, it can be assumed, this
issue will be addressed. It is possible that there are other statements by this
hierarch on this topic, but for now, they remain a complete "secret"
to me. Additionally, it is worth examining the destructive nature of the
activities of the former priest V. Melehov within the ROCOR(V) [who is now with
the "Russian True Orthodox Church (ROTC)].
At the same time, it must be
noted that the frank and impartial discussion taking place in my Journal is
primarily not about any particular individual, no matter how significant they
may be, but about the historical path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad,
which various church figures interpret differently, sometimes to the point of
completely distorting it.
* * * *
Having read Bishop Gregory's
(Grabbe) Petition to the Council of Bishops (presented below), it is difficult
to resist commenting on it, at least to some extent, since this document
differs greatly in spirit from what had previously come from the pen of this
church writer.
If the first, introductory part,
where His Grace Bishop Gregory reminds his fellow bishops of his role and the
significance of the ROCOR, is impeccable (especially important is his reminder
of the pastoral approach, based on the combination of truth and love,
characteristic of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in resolving various
issues), then the second part may easily perplex those who are familiar with
the essence of the Boston case being presented.
First of all, Bishop Gregory, who
was well-acquainted (perhaps better than anyone) with the affairs of the Boston
monastery, does not personally deny the moral accusations brought against its
abbot, Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropoulos), but states that the Boston
flock considers the accusations against him unjust and places greater trust in
him (Fr. Panteleimon) than in the Higher Church Authority.
But after all, the investigation
was conducted precisely for this purpose by a special Synodal commission, with
the participation of Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles and Bishop Alypy of
Cleveland (i.e., witnesses were summoned, witness testimonies were read, etc.),
to determine whether the accusations made were just or unjust. And this
investigation took place over the course of many months.
Moreover, it must be noted that
the ROCOR Synod did not begin dealing with the Boston case on its own
initiative. It was not sudden, nor was it due to any malicious intent that it
began to "attack" the poor Archimandrite Panteleimon. Long before the
open phase of the scandal, numerous complaints began to arrive at the Synod of
Bishops, and the Synod was simply forced to take up this unpleasant matter in
every respect. And it was not the Synod that initiated this "uproar"
and scandal, but Fr. Panteleimon himself, through his unchristian behavior
(involving his flock by making accusations against the ROCOR).
It turns out that His Grace
Bishop Gregory reproaches the Synod for even attempting to untangle the Boston
knot and for having the imprudence to arrive at sad conclusions, now calling
upon it for leniency and mercy—toward those who are unrepentant and unwilling
to acknowledge their guilt, despite the irrefutable testimonies of the victims.
Moreover, he suggests seeking ways to pacify the dissatisfied Greek flock,
perhaps through a public apology from the representatives of the Synod of
Bishops to the abbot of the Transfiguration Monastery, who has
"suffered" from the "punitive measures."
Bishop Gregory emphasizes the
"uproar" in his Petition, but was it the Synod Abroad that caused the
uproar?
Does His Grace not know who truly
caused the public uproar and mobilized the flock to oppose Church authority?
Who boldly refused to appear before the Church court and began making noise to
the whole world about the "sins" and "departures" of the
ROCOR, after which they demonstratively and with great fanfare left the Church
Abroad? Of course, His Grace Gregory knows all of this perfectly well.
Moreover, this matter lasted many months, and ample time was given for
repentance.
If the Greeks (along with two
"Russians," including the former priest V. Melehov) had spoken out
against the "departure" of the Church Abroad before the Synod,
through Bishops Anthony and Alypy, began their investigation, and if this
protest had been just and well-founded, then one could speak of their
confession of faith and of the "uproar" that Church authority would
have raised as an unjust countermeasure. Otherwise, such "confession of
faith" is merely a form, a beautiful wrapper, a way to use accusations to
evade responsibility for committed moral transgressions.
And did the former priest Victor Melehov
not know about the moral accusations brought against Fr. Panteleimon?
He knew perfectly well, just like
everyone else, and this is evident not only from the fact that all materials
were published in the Church press but also from the text of the Petition
itself: “The resolution on the matter of Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac is
considered unjust by the overwhelming majority of our flock, especially the
Greek flock in the Boston area” (i.e., everyone knew about the moral
accusations). However, there is a significant exaggeration in this phrase
regarding the "overwhelming majority of our flock." After all, no
statistical calculations were conducted, but it is clear that the majority of
the Greek flock, influenced by "elder" Panteleimon, knew about the
accusations but considered them unjust. And, of course, they trusted their
Greek false elder more than the Synod of Bishops. But this same Greek
"elder" was also trusted more than their Russian bishops by Russian
priests (Frs. Melehov and [Spyridon] Schneider). Bishop Gregory confirms this
as well: “The same attitude is shared by the entire clergy of this area (about
10 people),” which included the "Russian" clergy. However, recalling
their attitude toward this "blue" scandal now (not participation in
the immoral acts of the "elder" and his brethren, but their covering
up and tacit justification) is understandably uncomfortable—they find it much
more appealing to be seen as "confessors."
Another noteworthy aspect here is
the pragmatism of Bishop Gregory.
It is as if he places on one side
of the scales the moral accusations (a mortal, sodomite sin, which, in his
opinion, should be approached quietly and wisely, with the utmost leniency and
love, citing Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy as examples (?!) of such an
approach). On the other side, he places the influence and significance of this
monastery—its power, that is, the "million-dollar property" of the
monastery (as he misrepresents it, accumulated "out of nothing"—which
is untrue, as those interested can read in the Notes to my article "And
Who Are the Judges?"), its numerous flock, 10–15 Greek parishes, and
so on.
And he poses an interesting, yet
strange question for an archpastor: when making a decision on this Boston case,
was the Synod of Bishops aware of these details, that is, the
"million-dollar property" of the "elder" and his strong influence?
It is well known that this Greek
"elder" was both wealthy and generous with gifts, as was the Greek
diaspora, which readily donated to and supported him.
But what of it? Should one turn a
blind eye to the moral transgressions of a wealthy Greek monk for the sake of
profit? Is this what Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy taught?
What is Bishop Gregory advocating
for? Orthodoxy or a compromise with conscience for the sake of material benefit
and an illusory advantage for the Greek flock? And when is he proposing this?
At a time when the case has become widely publicized, and everyone is aware of
it? Is the Bishop not aware that in the current situation, there are only two
possible paths: either the accused (Fr. Panteleimon) repents, or the accuser
(the Synod) does? And here, in effect, Bishop Gregory is proposing the
latter—namely, that the Council of Bishops "consider urgent measures to
treat the grave illness that has arisen for them, so that they (the Greeks—ed.
V.K.) feel that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not a cruel stepmother
but a loving mother."
Thus, His Grace Bishop Gregory,
perhaps unwittingly, openly reveals his moral stance by proposing that the
Synod backtrack—burying a case that became widely known thanks to the
"propaganda machine" of the wealthy Greek (see my article "And
Who Are the Judges?"). This, even though Fr. Panteleimon, in defiance
of the Synod, publicly accused the Church Abroad of heresy and
apostasy—allegations that supposedly led him, shortly thereafter, to leave with
his "sensitive" and "scandalized" flock, disillusioned by the
Synodal decision, for the non-canonical Old Calendarist Greeks. Later, he
established, on the foundation of the deposed Archbishop Auxentios, who had
been removed for numerous violations, his own "Holy" parasynagogue in
North America (HOCNA), naturally backed by his vast wealth, as is customary in
those circles.
Without a doubt, this entire
scandal could have been resolved differently, with the greatest possible economia
in the spirit of the loving and gracious Metropolitan Anthony, but only under
one indispensable condition—namely, the timely repentance of those guilty of
their sins. However, the issue is that the proud Fr. Panteleimon did not repent
of anything at the time—neither he nor his clergy, including Frs. Melehov and
Schneider. Even now, these two "Russians" continue to cloak their,
albeit unwitting, complicity in the unrighteous deeds of the schism-inciter Fr.
Panteleimon under the guise of "confession of faith."
* * * *
Interestingly, a few months ago,
there was a report that the terminally ill Fr. Panteleimon had supposedly
repented of his involvement in a "demonic cult," which, along with
other disorders, caused a scandal within his "holy" group. It is also
known that Fr. S. Schneider ended his "confession of faith" within
the Moscow Patriarchate (ROCOR-MP), while the former priest V. Melehov
continues to persistently propagate his "confession of faith" (that
is, the "ultra-correct," destructive poison) further across jurisdictions.
However, this "confession of
faith" is not actually the creation of this former priest but is borrowed
from the "ultra-correct" Greek "elder," who essentially
espouses a variant of Matthewite ecclesiology, with its concept of
"automatic loss of grace," the proud condemnation of all local
Churches, and the self-presentation as a "judge of the universe." It
goes without saying that such a sectarian stance is the antithesis of the
moderate position of Greek Metropolitan Cyprian, Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), a
disciple of St. John (Maximovitch), St. John himself, as well as, for example,
Bishop Anthony of Geneva, among others.
This moderate, "royal"
position is also affirmed as being that of the Church Abroad, as stated by its
Chairman, Metropolitan Vitaly, at the Council of Bishops in 1993: "Archbishop
Laurus recounts the contents of a letter from some unknown individual sent by
Archbishop Anthony of Geneva. It is an apology for adhering to the royal path
in ecclesiastical matters... The Chairman states that we are, in fact, adhering
to such a path. We do not concelebrate with the Ecumenical Patriarch, but
neither do we claim that his Church is without grace" (Protocol No. 4,
April 24/May 7, 1993).
Could this, too, be considered a
heresy of the "sick and healthy members of the Church in the realm of
'proper understanding of faith,'" for which Metropolitan Cyprian is
reproached—now proclaimed by Metropolitan Vitaly, who did not consider the
Patriarchate of Constantinople to be without grace despite its involvement in
ecumenism? And for the rest of the Council of Bishops, this was a matter of
course.
How can an ecumenical Church have
grace-filled Sacraments? – asks the "zealous without knowledge," and
no positive answer can satisfy them. I fear this is truly an insoluble paradox
for the "ultra-correct" rationalists, for whom it is exceedingly
difficult to explain the essence of the matter. To them, everything is either
black or white. What is striking is their confidence that they have been given
(by whom, exactly?) the authority to decide who has grace and who does not.
They have appropriated the right to judge in an area that belongs to God alone,
thereby making themselves, in some measure, equal to Him. Naturally, they do
not need a corresponding Council with the authority to judge; they consider
themselves above it. Of course, it is easier for them to label you a heretic
than to delve into this significant issue.
In any case, it must be
understood that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has never professed the
heretical doctrine of "automatic loss of grace" and held a clear
understanding of its own "local anathema" against ecumenism in 1983.
It did not, based on this anathema, condemn local Churches as being without
grace but believed that such important and complex issues require a Council of
universal significance. Metropolitan Cyprian held this view as well.
This is why the former priest V. Melehov
insisted so strongly on condemning Cyprian’s ecclesiology during his
"return" to ROCOR in November 2001, as it contradicted his entire
rational, black-and-white "confession of faith" (thus, in one stroke,
he was also condemning the traditional position of ROCOR). This uncompromising
condition for his "return" to his alma mater provoked the
issuance of the well-known and highly controversial decision of the ROCiE Synod
on October 26/November 8, 2001, which immediately triggered a series of
protests (3), as testified in an explanatory letter by Fr. Spiridon Schneider.
Here is an excerpt from this
Synod decision, imposed by the former priest Melehov: "In accordance with
the resolution of the ROCOR Council of Bishops of 1974, regarding the cessation
of the unconsidered Eucharistic communion established by the ROCOR Council in
1994 with the Synod in Resistance under the Chairmanship of Metropolitan
Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, due to his unorthodox teaching on the Church
(concerning the sick and healthy members of the Church in the area of 'proper
understanding of faith') and his recognition of the Sacraments of the new
calendarists as valid."
It goes without saying that such
an official interpretation by the "young" ROCOR Synod regarding the
Sacraments of local Churches that transitioned to the new calendar (i.e.,
effectively recognizing them as graceless) is a novelty in the Church Abroad—a
practice unprecedented and unparalleled in ROCOR history, characteristic only
of the Matthewites and other extremist groups like the Bostonians. Moreover,
this imposed innovation was hypocritically and falsely presented by the Melehov
group as a desire to "correct the course of errors introduced into ROCOR
through the gradual departure from the traditional confession of the Church
Abroad by hierarchs who had deviated" (Protocols of the Meeting of
Bishops and Clergy of the USA and Canada, December 15/28 – 16/29, 2001). In
reality, the opposite was true: there was a cunning and not immediately
noticeable substitution of the "traditional confession of the Church
Abroad" with something entirely different and not at all reflective of
ROCOR's ethos.
It is unfortunate that those
responsible for making the decision at the time failed to see this... and
allowed themselves to be drawn into an adventure. Moreover, there were some who
sympathized with the teachings of the former priest V. Melehov, who in their
eyes transformed overnight from a defrocked cleric into a
"confessor." In any case, Fr. Nikita Orlov (later the former Bishop
Anthony), who subsequently orchestrated an "ultra-correct" schism
with the former Bishop V. Pivovarov, clearly adhered overall to Melehov’s
views. But was he the only one? Unfortunately, subsequent events showed that he
was not.
And if one were to follow the
Pharisaic logic of these "correctors," then Metropolitans Anthony and
Anastassy would have to be labeled "hierarchs who deviated," as would
St. Philaret, and, of course, St. John (Maximovitch), along with Archbishop
Anthony of Geneva, who frequently referenced him, and, sadly, even Metropolitan
Vitaly himself. At the same time, the entire glorious path of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad would have to be condemned. Meanwhile, the former priest
Victor Melehov would be rehabilitated, transforming from a hardened schismatic,
deprived of his rank, into a "confessor."
But why did ROCOR fail to
establish relations with either the Matthewites or the Auxentios faction (the
precursors of the Chrysostomites)? The primary reason is that they adhered to
ecclesiological positions that were different from, if not outright opposed to,
one another. Only with the moderate followers of Metropolitan Cyprian did
ROCOR's positions essentially align (as was officially confirmed by the 1994
ROCOR Council of Bishops), which facilitated the establishment of full
Eucharistic and prayerful communion between the two Churches. This communion
would likely have continued to this day if the majority of ROCOR had not
departed from its "royal" path of true Orthodoxy (Fr. Seraphim
Rose).
The reference to the
"resolution of the 1974 ROCOR Council of Bishops" is not particularly
convincing. First, the decision was made in 1975, and for the following reason:
due to the lawlessness perpetrated by Archbishop Auxentios, which caused even
his fellow bishops to groan. These included "blue" scandals (for
those familiar, I remind you of the disappearance of a panagia under
delicate circumstances), unauthorized ordinations ("they baked bishops
like pies," in the words of Metropolitan Vitaly), and, as a result,
endless unions and divisions ("dances" with Synods), crude intrusions
into ROCOR’s territory (e.g., the case of John Rocha), and so on (see https://kirillov-v-y.livejournal.com/35459.html).
Secondly, let us not forget the
infamously notorious encyclical of Archbishop Auxentios from 1974, declaring
the Sacraments of the Church of Greece to be without grace—a position with
which the Church Abroad could not possibly agree. Lastly, Metropolitan Cyprian
had no direct relation to this ROCOR decision, as in 1975 he was quietly residing
in his monastery as its abbot. Only in 1979 did he become a bishop within the
Synod of Metropolitan Kallistos, who had separated from Archbishop Auxentios.
Afterward, their first action was to travel to the ROCOR Synod to explain what
had transpired and to request the restoration of relations with ROCOR, which
had been disrupted due to the lawless acts of Archbishop Auxentios (as
documented in a Synodal resolution). Therefore, to now speak of the unification
of Old Calendarist Greeks who hold opposing ecclesiological positions as a
condition for ROCOR's union with them is merely an excuse and an unwillingness
to engage with the affairs of another Church or seek unity with Orthodox
brethren. Let us also not forget that the Greek scandals were a consequence of
ROCOR's interference in the affairs of another local Church, and thus
dismissing them now without further consideration appears neither fair nor
appropriate.
Thus, in essence, with this act
of rejecting its own tradition (the Statement of the ROCiE Synod), the
mechanism of self-destruction (or one of the mechanisms) was initially embedded
in the resisting apostasy faction of ROCOR. The subsequent "Orlov,"
"Pivovarov," "Damascene," and other "Vitalyite"
"fragments" (positioning themselves as true Churches) were a natural
consequence of the introduction into ROCOR of a principle alien to it:
"truth without love." Truth combined with love does not imply total
and demonstrative separation from everyone (a prideful isolation in one’s
imagined righteousness). One must distinguish "zeal for God" from
"zeal without knowledge." It is impossible to successfully build
something lasting on negation or hatred of something (even if that something is
truly wrong and worthy of critique, as one priest noted), and even less so on a
rejection of one’s own history and direct path. As Bishop Gregory aptly wrote
in one place, "The Church is not governed by zigzags." If, in
church-building, denial (cutting the very branch one is sitting on) is laid as the
foundation instead of a positive basis, it is akin to building on rotten
ground. This inevitably leads to destruction—which has already happened, as
there will always be those who are "more true" and "more
zealous," for unrestrained zeal knows no bounds. And this is not where one
should begin…
As stated in the Protocols of
the Meeting of Bishops and Clergy of the USA and Canada, December 28–29, 2001,
"Metropolitan Vitaly, together with faithful hierarchs, issued Statement
No. 7/01/M on October 26 / November 8, 2001, which reaffirms the anathema
against the heresy of ecumenism from 1983, condemns the Moscow Patriarchate,
and terminates all relations with the Serbian Patriarchate and the Synod of
Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili" (source: http://www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com/russian%20site/rusmansonville1.html).
One might ask: how many times can
the anathema against ecumenism be reaffirmed? How many times can the MP (Moscow
Patriarchate) be condemned? The anathema was reaffirmed conciliarily not long
before these events in 1998, and Metropolitan Vitaly had not renounced it over
the last three years. The actions of the MP had been repeatedly condemned by
the Metropolitan in various statements, such as the Extraordinary
Declaration of 2001. As for relations with the Serbs, they were already de
facto nonexistent (see Metropolitan Vitaly’s Circular Letter of 2000 and
his withdrawal of his signature from a letter to the Serbian Patriarch).
But the most significant and new
element, the reason why, as they say, the former priest V. Melehov initiated
"all this commotion," is the ecclesiological position of Metropolitan
Cyprian's Synod.
For Melehov’s group (and for all
"ultra-correct" factions of various kinds), this ecclesiological
issue is the most crucial, the key point. Yet, it is precisely here that the
fundamental difference lies between the position of the Church Abroad and that
of the Matthewites or the Bostonians, including the former priest V. Melehov.
The Church Abroad has never,
under any First Hierarch, taught that grace has departed from the local
Churches (even those using the new calendar, or those whose hierarchs
participate in the WCC). It has always maintained that such a question requires
a competent Council to resolve. By contrast, extremist Greeks (and their
Russian followers) believe that everything happens "automatically,"
and it is sufficient for them to recognize it as such. ROCOR has long and
consistently condemned the heresy of ecumenism but has never passed judgment on
the local Churches whose hierarchs are involved in the ecumenical movement. The
Church Abroad has not supported the transition to the new calendar, but it has
never condemned new-calendar Churches as graceless. And in this lies the
principal distinction between the Church and these groups.
The Church Abroad communicated,
when necessary, with the Patriarch of Jerusalem (for instance, there is a
letter from Metropolitan Vitaly to the Patriarch of Jerusalem), with the Serbs
(at least, relations were not severed), with the Old Calendarist Romanians and
Bulgarians, and later with the Greeks (the Synod in Resistance—the
second-largest Old Calendarist group in Greece, with parishes in America,
Australia, Sweden, Africa, and so on). Moreover, it did not officially or
demonstratively sever relations with other Churches, though communication, for
understandable reasons, was reduced to "virtually nothing," and so
forth. In the episcopal consecration of Metropolitan Philaret in Australia, the
Greek new-calendar Bishop Dionysius participated as an equal—what further
evidence is needed? This First Hierarch exchanged congratulatory correspondence
with hierarchs of new-calendar Churches, and even the Roman Pope sent him
Christmas greetings (oh, the horror!). This information was published in the
press of the Church Abroad, and yet no one accused St. Philaret the Confessor
of heresy or apostasy—not even the former priest V. Melehov.
In turn, with whom does a sect
commune? With itself? Does it imply that everyone else has fallen away and only
it (in the form of tiny fragments) remains? And where, then, is the Universal
Catholic Church? Could it truly exist solely as a self-enclosed, self-sufficient
group, ready to splinter further and fundamentally unwilling to seek unity with
anyone?
Has the Universal Church already
been overcome by the gates of hell?
Never—it simply needs to be
recognized, while a sect that professes the heresy of
"gracelessness," or a group gradually transforming into a sect, built
on the denial of something (especially its historical path), lacks the
grace-filled resources for its development. And here, I am not revealing
anything new.
Some believe that only
ecumenism—a violation of the dogma of the Church, a blurring of its boundaries,
and thus a heresy—is dangerous. However, no less perilous is "zeal without
knowledge"—"zealotry," a kind of ecclesiastical fanaticism.
Under the guise of defending the purity of Orthodoxy, it narrows the Church's
boundaries to the size of its own microscopic faction (a "sect of
gracelessness"), arbitrarily and "automatically" relegating all
other Orthodox Christians to the category of those who have fallen away. This,
too, is a heresy against the dogma of the Church. "The greatest
evil," said St. Philaret the Confessor, echoing the words of the Holy
Fathers, "is the desire to eradicate all evil." Many have fallen prey
to this "excessive zeal" ("ultra-correctness") and,
unfortunately, continue to do so to this day. On this matter, Fr. Seraphim
(Rose) wrote: "Bostonian Orthodoxy is nothing more than the right-wing of
'Parisian Orthodoxy' (referring to the St. Sergius Institute in Paris—ed.
V.K.)—reformed, 'correct,' born of human logic, outside the patristic
tradition. It is a grave temptation of our time."
And now, through the efforts of
the former priest V. Melehov, "this grave temptation of our
time"—"Bostonian Orthodoxy"—has officially penetrated ROCOR(V),
through the adoption of several church documents, including the Resolution
of the Pastoral Conference of December 16/29, 2001. This resolution is
based on the well-known 1994 report by Bishop Gregory, which itself embodies
the same "Bostonian Orthodoxy." It is no coincidence that this report
was recently included by the former priest V. Melehov in his article directed
against the ecclesiology of Metropolitan Cyprian.
But why does this proponent of
Matthewite teaching so fervently attack the position of Metropolitan Cyprian,
absurdly labeling it "crypto-ecumenism" (a term all the
"zealots" repeat in unison)? It is because this teaching is a
response to the delusional Matthewite error (including its Bostonian
modification) and, in essence, refutes it. This, as they say, is where
"the crux of the matter lies."
The word "ecumenism" is
now frequently used, creating the impression that it has been intentionally
turned into a label that can be applied to anything and anyone. However, this
heresy has a specific meaning, particularly in relation to the 1983 anathema of
the Church Abroad.
What was anathematized by the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?
The Anglican-Protestant
"branch theory," according to which the true (as understood by
heretics) Church of Christ is composed of all Christian denominations. In this
view, the Orthodox Church is not the one true Church but merely one among many.
Additionally, those who teach that the sacraments of non-Orthodox, heretics
(Protestants, Roman Catholics, Monophysites, etc.) are sufficient for salvation
(i.e., those who do not distinguish between the "true priesthood and
Sacraments of the Church and those of heretics") and those Orthodox who
maintain communion with heretics (i.e., those who accept the "branch
theory") fall under the scope of this anathema.
What a rich—or rather, distorted
and deformed—imagination one must have to believe that the "moderately
ecumenist" ROCOR and the "crypto-ecumenist" Synod in Resistance
fall under this anathema. Both of these Churches have never, anywhere,
recognized the "branch theory" as truth and have never taught that
the sacraments of heretics are sufficient for salvation. On the contrary, they
have always held that the Sacraments are performed only within the Orthodox,
the one true Church. As far as I know, they have not entered into communion
with anyone who acknowledges the "branch theory," whether within the
Orthodox tradition or among non-Orthodox. Furthermore, this does not mean that
every member of a given local Church (or anyone belonging to a new-calendarist
or ecumenist church organization) "automatically" falls under the
Church Abroad's anathema. Only those who profess this "branch theory"
or consider the sacraments of non-Orthodox sufficient for salvation are subject
to it—and even then, they are cut off invisibly by God's judgment from the Body
of Christ, as they have not yet been brought to the visible Judgment of the
Church.
But who today truly professes
this "branch theory"?
It is difficult to say offhand.
This is a matter for investigation by a competent court. In any case, even the
Moscow Patriarchate has officially renounced this "theory" and
recognizes only the Orthodox Church as true (I won’t delve here into their
dubious theory of "residual grace" among the non-Orthodox, as there
is neither time nor space for that). As for their participation in WCC
gatherings, Moscow’s representatives claim they are there to confess Orthodoxy
and do not engage in prayers with heretics, merely standing as witnesses. So,
go and verify that if you can…
Nowadays, some "excessively
zealous" individuals are prone to label anyone who does not, like them,
declare all official Churches graceless as an ecumenist (apparently not
understanding what the term actually means). They likely also do not realize
that by doing so, they are pleasing the real, committed ecumenists, who rejoice
when divided Orthodox Christians, instead of creating a united anti-ecumenical
front, tear each other apart.
In this sense, using the words of
the anathema—“and to those who have communion with these heretics, or assist
them, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism, imagining it to be brotherly
love and the unity of divided Christians: Anathema”—to condemn the
pre-schism ROCOR, as Bishop Gregory has done, as well as the Synod in
Resistance (who have done more than anyone else to denounce ecumenism), seems
to me, to put it mildly, a great stretch, if not outright slander. This is what
the Russians call “casting a shadow on the fence.” It is utterly unreasonable
to label as "ecumenists" (or even "crypto-ecumenists")
those who oppose this pan-heresy but do not consider local Churches, in which
some hierarchs participate in this movement, to have fallen away from Orthodoxy
solely on that basis. A local Church is not composed solely of hierarchs who
have deviated (whose percentage is very small compared to the total number of
believers) but of a multitude of people who not only do not participate in
ecumenism but, in most cases, are largely unaware of it. Moreover, there are
many within these Churches who actively resist the heresy. I do not deny that
there is active apostasy taking place there, but only the Lord knows when
everything will ultimately decay (when the organism will be infected and die).
Apostasy is a process. For example, it is said of the Roman Catholics that this
process lasted for three hundred years in their case.
Ecumenism, in a broad sense, is
no longer merely the heresy defined by the Church Abroad’s anathema (which true
ecumenists have learned to bypass successfully). It is a diverse, multifaceted,
and complex phenomenon—a whole front of apostasy—that requires conciliar
reflection and definition. Simplifying it into a black-and-white graphic image
to frighten everyone and indiscriminately attaching "scary labels" to
everything and everyone is simply unreasonable.
Ecumenism, like a multi-headed
hydra, does not remain stationary (at the position of classical ecumenism, such
as at the beginning of the 20th century or the version of Constantinople’s
Patriarch Athenagoras). It is constantly in motion, always "searching":
one head hides, two others appear, and so on. This cunning hydra must be
monitored with theological precision—a level that not all critics possess.
The Synod in Resistance,
carefully studying this destructive phenomenon of our times, is engaged in much
more serious work than those who "stick labels" and insult their
fellow Orthodox Christians. At the very least, Cyprianite theologians do not
publicly write the kind of "ultra-correct" nonsense that is written
about them. For example, such claims can be found in the articles of the former
priest V. Melehov, who absorbed them from his Greek "elder" and
Bishop Gregory in the latter period of his life. The latter’s article on this
topic differs significantly from what this ideologist of ROCOR wrote earlier.
Similarly, this "Bostonian ultra-correct" spirit permeates other
documents as well.
Thus, "In the example of
our Greeks (wrote Fr. Seraphim Rose, referring to the Bostonians—ed. V.K.), we
observe a classic case of spiritual delusion, into which they have fallen due
to vanity and self-conceit. The result of all this will be tragic, and many
will fall into this pit because they trust Fr. Panteleimon (now we can add, and
his disciple, the former priest Victor Melehov) more than God" (http://www.listok.com/raznoe8.htm).
So, where exactly (into what pit
of delusion) was the former priest V. Melehov, along with his pro-Bostonian
group, attempting to push ROCOR under the omophorion of Metropolitan Vitaly,
while striving to "correct the course of errors" in the Church
Abroad?
It is better not to dwell on
this. As the Russian proverb says, "Let a goat into the garden..."
And there is no need to attempt
to drag Elder Metropolitan Vitaly into this unpleasant "Melehov
story" (and place all the blame on him) by claiming that he allegedly
endorsed and signed documents that, as shown above, represent a genuine
departure from the historical path of ROCOR, or that he himself supposedly
authored this Synodal decree of the ROCiE. This false assertion is refuted by
the testimony of Fr. Spyridon Schneider.
What can be said in response to
this?
Firstly, it is well known what
advanced age Metropolitan Vitaly was in at that time and the state and
circumstances he was in, especially when he was influenced for two and a half
hours by a group of clergy who were of one mind (see Fr. S. Schneider's letter
for additional context).
But that is not the main issue.
The main point is that the documents of the ROCiE bearing his signature
directly contradict everything this First Hierarch of the Church Abroad had
said and written for many years, even decades, regarding the local new-calendar
Churches, some of whose hierarchs participate in the ecumenical movement. And
he always said the same thing (paraphrasing his words): We do not want to be
their judges; we will not commit this madness (of condemnation). (I have
published these statements of his numerous times already, and if necessary, I
can publish them again, including in facsimile form.)
Now, compared to this genuine
calamity, the question of how the former priest Melehov was received into
ROCOR(V)—under what rite or, perhaps, without any rite at all, whether he is a
priest or defrocked—becomes relatively less important. The main issue is that
he planted under ROCOR(V) the Boston mine of "Elder" Panteleimon, which
has not yet been defused, as the aforementioned documents of the ROCiE have not
been annulled. They remain on the "old" official website and,
moreover, were reaffirmed in 2008 (4).
Therefore, I call for the
unification of the fragmented parts of ROCOR while there is still opportunity
and time, thereby de facto correcting its position (that is, simultaneously
renouncing through this act its actual errors and various misguided decisions).
In this case, each will contribute their own to the common treasury: some will
bring continuity with Metropolitan Vitaly, others spiritual continuity with the
Church Abroad, and still others something unique to them. For this unification
is pleasing to God, while division serves the devil. "Divide and
conquer"—this is his principle. "Nothing so provokes the wrath of
God as divisions in the Church," taught St. John Chrysostom.
So why provoke God’s wrath?
We must ultimately choose: either
we unite with moderate Russians, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, and others who
follow the "royal" path (the one the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
has always followed), or with the "zealous without knowledge"—sectarians
or semi-sectarians.
Of course, there is another path:
to slowly fade into irrelevance in our "proud isolation" and perish
along with our errors, while the reasonable will move forward on their own
path.
But that, perhaps, is all—there
are no other paths, in my opinion. A symptom of purification from the
"Bostonian" infection (healing) will be the desire for unity, not
stagnation in self-isolation and imagined righteousness (self-satisfaction),
which will lead to nothing good for such "confessors."
I am not calling for so-called
"Orthodox ecumenism," as some "ultra-correct" clever
individuals may falsely portray it, but for unity—a united Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad.
Otherwise, one would have to
consider even the ever-blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) an
"Orthodox ecumenist," along with his Synod, which did everything,
including making various compromises, to achieve the unity they desired within the
Church Abroad, which had been divided by the actions of Metropolitans Evlogy
and Platon. In 1936, an agreement was even reached between them, reflected in
the Provisional Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, approved
by the General Council of Bishops, but later annulled through the efforts of
opponents of church unity. Nevertheless, the Church Abroad continued to call
for this unity even afterward.
Thus, the longstanding scandal
surrounding the Boston monastery, spanning many years, is not only a moral
issue but, as the former priest V. Melehov himself demonstrated through his
"ultra-correct" actions, also an ecclesiological one. Moreover, it is
not merely a matter of ROCOR’s history but remains highly relevant and pressing
today.
The mentor and teacher of the
former priest V. Melehov, the Boston "elder" Panteleimon, who aspired
to shadowy spiritual leadership over the entire Church Abroad, sought to steer
its course in the direction he deemed appropriate (i.e., into a spiritual pit).
All the "zealots" of the Church Abroad, scattered here and there,
were connected with him in one way or another—even the "zealots"
living in France. This was an entire "ultra-correct" front of
"gracelessness" adherents, united under the authority of the
"elder"-zealot Fr. Panteleimon and his quasi-Matthewite ecclesiology.
Overseeing the Transfiguration Monastery was none other than Bishop Gregory,
who now, in his Petition, defends the "poor" Greeks for whom, it
seems, the Church Abroad has allegedly become a "stepmother."
The ever-memorable Hieromonk
Seraphim (Rose), a disciple of St. John, in his letters from the 1970s,
discerned the spiritual essence of the harmful and corrupting Bostonian
"confession of faith." He long ago predicted that this deluded group
("a church within the Church") would end its path in the Church
Abroad with a schism: "In time, the 'ultra-correct' will increase their
influence and orchestrate a great schism, a sort of coup within the Church.
However, it will not succeed, and the rebels will end up as a small sect,
entrenched in their dogmas (read heresies—ed. V.K.)." And so it
happened.
Why, then, should we continue to
partake in these heresies to this day and move toward becoming a sect?
But where was the eminent
ideologist of ROCOR, Bishop Gregory, looking?
The Boston monastery, as a
breeding ground for a sectarian (heretical) spirit throughout the Church, was
Bishop Gregory's creation, and he bore responsibility for it.
St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was
absolutely right when he taught that one should not rely unquestioningly on
authorities, even those wearing cassocks, klobuks, or even panagias. In our
time of spiritual impoverishment and the absence of grace-filled guides, the
gifts of discernment and spiritual discernment are especially necessary. These
can only be obtained through fervent prayer and cannot be acquired while
indulging in coarse carnal sins—starting with drunkenness, which has become
commonplace even among hierarchs. Without these gifts, one can stray far from
the ultimate goal: one’s salvation. I write this as someone who personally
suffered from excessive trust in the authority of the same Bishop Gregory (for
instance, in analyzing the position of Metropolitan Cyprian).
In short, as the saying goes,
"Even an old hand can make a mistake."
* * * *
And what about the moral aspect?
Alas, here too, unfortunately,
not everything is as it should be…
It is known from an official
Synodal resolution (Church Life, No. 1–2, 1987) that several years
before the events described (still under Metropolitan Philaret), Protopresbyter
George Grabbe was tasked with investigating a complaint by the Boston
schemamonk Athanasius about the "improper behavior" of the
"elder." However, "nothing definite was discovered." Later,
there was another complaint of a similar nature from another monk, Hieromonk
Gregory. "At the instruction of Metropolitan Philaret, His Grace Bishop
Gregory apparently spoke with Archimandrite Panteleimon, who stated that… they
were slandering him to harm the monastery." And again, nothing came of it.
Complaints continued, the victims were perplexed by the inaction of the Church
authorities (specifically Bishop Gregory), and eventually, under the new
Metropolitan, a covert commission was appointed to investigate the matter.
Thus, Bishop Gregory cannot
justify himself by claiming ignorance of the "elder's" sinful
inclinations; rather, he can be accused of gullibility or of deliberately
concealing another's sins.
And now he turns to the Council,
speaking of "urgent measures to treat the grave illness that has
arisen" and reminding his fellow bishops of their responsibility before
God. Of course, all of this strange behavior could be attributed to old age and
illness, but still…
Why did he himself not treat the
"Greek illness" in a timely manner and without unnecessary publicity
when he was the first to be entrusted with the investigation (which, as they
say, he "shelved," shielding the "elder"), and why is he
now shifting the blame "from a sick head to a healthy one" (i.e.,
from himself to the Synod)?
Could it really be that, after
many years of interaction with the monastery, Bishop Gregory noticed nothing
suspicious in the behavior of the Greek "zealots of Orthodoxy"?
Strange… or was he, once again, displaying tolerance and indulgence? Or perhaps,
for him, the primary concern was preserving the "million-dollar
property" and supporting the "zealots," letting them amuse
themselves as they pleased, as long as they and their loyal flock remained
within the ecclesiastical enclosure of the Church Abroad?
I don’t know—God is his judge—but
it would be difficult to regard him as a naive man.
Moreover, there is a story that
the Boston Greeks, in 1986 (i.e., after his retirement), even offered Bishop
Gregory the leadership of their group that was leaving ROCOR. They awaited his
decision, but fortunately, at that time, he did not dare to accept the offer.
As the spiritually wise Bishop
Anthony of Geneva wrote with complete clarity to Metropolitan Vitaly on January
2, 1987: "It was not we who bestowed favor upon the Greeks who came to
us (Fr. Panteleimon and his brethren—ed. V.K.), nor did we find in them
obedient flock members. They wanted to rule our Church and lead us along their
path. And we, without even realizing it, became their slaves, fearing their
criticism: 'What will the Greeks say!?' The Greeks have always been proud and
self-assured, looking down on the Slavic Churches with disdain. And now they
have thanked us accordingly."
And from another letter, dated
December 12, 1986, to the same recipient: "I learned that Panteleimon
fled to Akakios. For us, it is evident that this is for the better. Perhaps
this will resolve the issue of our captivity to the Greek Old Calendarists.
Enough of constantly looking to them and pondering what we can or cannot do. We
are part of the Russian Church, and our path is not with the Greeks."
Christ the Savior did not leave
us a Dogmatics or laws about the calendar. He left us only one condition
for being worthy to call ourselves His disciples: "Love one
another!" And when we place the calendar at the forefront and quarrel
over it, we swallow the camel and strain out the gnat. It is time to honestly
and openly admit that the issue is not the calendar but our behavior.
Apparently, those who preserve the old calendar are allowed to be pederasts,
hate their neighbors, and tear the Church apart.
We are called, dear Vladyka, to
rightly proclaim the word of Christ's TRUTH. Instead, we have ended up in an
Old Calendarist sect, floundering in its web, unable to find a way out. It is
time to openly and firmly tell the Greeks: stop your disgraceful behavior,
mutual condemnations, hostility, and hatred among brothers. By your behavior,
you shame the Church and blasphemously call yourselves true Orthodox
Christians.
Dear Vladyka, we pray that the
Lord will help you endure yet another storm, a storm raised by the
self-satisfied Pharisees of our time, who imagine themselves to be
righteous."
How important and relevant are
these pointed words of Archbishop Anthony, which bear repeating without shame: "It
is time to honestly and openly admit that the issue is not the calendar but our
behavior. Apparently, those who preserve the old calendar are allowed to be
pederasts, hate their neighbors, and tear the Church apart." But whom
did this hierarch of the Church Abroad have in mind? The self-satisfied
Pharisees of our time, who imagine themselves to be righteous.
What, then, is the essence of
this destructive Boston phenomenon?
In Phariseeism—in profound
hypocrisy, pretense, and acting. When individuals occupying hierarchical or
spiritual positions use their "confession of faith" and pseudo-zeal
for Orthodoxy to mask their coarse vices and passions, beginning with unrestrained
drunkenness (not only intoxicating themselves but also their clergy, from the
youngest on up), sodomy, and so on. It is no surprise that such individuals go
on to consecrate bishops who are just like themselves.
The case of the Boston monastery
is, unfortunately, not unique in this regard. Let us recall the similar case of
the Athonite Skete of St. Elias, whose inhabitants were also such
"excessive zealots," and then it turned out...
Unrestrained zeal, closely tied
to pride and self-conceit, often leads to falling into such sins. And if not
specifically into sodomy, then inevitably into others. Moreover, drunkenness,
as is well known, often goes hand in hand with debauchery… and one demon
delivers the self-assured and proud "judge of the universe" into the
hands of another.
What else is the distortion of
the dogma of the Church—reducing the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, to a
mere organization, a sect—but an ecclesiological heresy? This is precisely what
"Bostonian theology," "Matthewite theology," and the like
represent.
The Apostle Paul includes
heresies among the works of the flesh: "The works of the flesh are
evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry,
sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousy, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions,
dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of
which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those
who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Galatians
5:20–21).
It is no surprise that the Boston
"sages" (for Fr. Panteleimon was not alone) were given over by God to
"dishonorable passions." And likely not only them, but many others
like them, who are dominated by "carnal mindsets." This explains
their inability to grasp obvious truths.
Heresies "belong to the
works of the flesh by their source—'the carnal mind,' which is 'death,' which
is 'enmity against God,' and which 'is not subject to the law of God, nor
indeed can be' (Rom. 8:6–7). They belong to the works of the flesh by their
consequences. Having alienated the human spirit from God and united it with the
spirit of Satan through the chief sin of blasphemy, they subject it to the
enslavement of passions, as one abandoned by God and given over to its own
fallen nature. 'Their foolish hearts were darkened,' says the Apostle about the
wise who deviated from the true knowledge of God, 'professing to be wise, they
became fools, and changed the truth of God into a lie; for this reason God gave
them up to dishonorable passions' (Rom. 1:21–26). Dishonorable passions refer
to various carnal lusts."
"If holy men, who lived
their lives with exceptional care for salvation, could not immediately
recognize blasphemy masked in a guise, what can be said of those who live
preoccupied with worldly cares, have an insufficient understanding of faith—the
most insufficient? How can they recognize a deadly heresy when it appears to
them adorned with the guise of wisdom, righteousness, and holiness? This is the
reason why entire human societies and whole nations easily fell under the yoke
of heresy." (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, On Orthodoxy).
As St. Ignatius Brianchaninov
wrote in the same work, all heretics were terribly depraved, yet they donned
the guise of righteousness and "righteous" zeal. The deluded "zeal
without knowledge," based on hypocrisy, is terrifying, dangerous, and
contagious. "Pursue hypocrisy within yourself, expelling it from
yourself," wrote the saint. "Avoid the masses infected with
it, who act both deliberately and unconsciously in its direction, covering
their service to the world with service to God, their pursuit of temporal goods
with the pursuit of eternal blessings, and disguising a corrupt life and a soul
wholly given to passions with the mask of holiness." (St. Ignatius, Patericon,
Conclusion). It could not be said more precisely.
Thus, the scandalous
"Boston" issue is both a moral and an ecclesiological question, as
the two are closely intertwined. There can be no true theology where hypocrisy,
self-conceit, depravity in the broad sense, various vices, hatred of others,
self-appointed judgment, and the desire to tear the Church apart (or the
refusal to seek unity out of pride, ambition, and self-sufficiency) prevail.
These are the sins pointed out by Bishop Anthony not only here but in many
other places, which I have already published.
It is no coincidence that, as a
response to these sorrowful Boston events, the well-known Christmas message of
1986 by the new First Hierarch addressed the issue of the Universal Church in
general and the grace of local Churches in particular. Metropolitan Vitaly also
did not fail to mention the local character of the anathema against ecumenism.
This message became a declaration of moderation and the "royal" path
that ROCOR had traditionally followed.
It is no coincidence, either,
that in this message Metropolitan Vitaly referenced and quoted the name and
words of the Holy Martyr Prof. Michael Novoselov, who wrote profoundly about
the distinction between the Church as an "organization" and as a
God-human "organism" (see my work on this subject in my blog,
*"The Church of Christ: 'Organism' or 'Organization'?"). These
distinctions must be understood. (The Metropolitan even reprinted Novoselov's Letters
to Friends in his Canadian Bulletin). It is no surprise that the
"zealots" raised by the Greek "elder" caused an uproar
after the publication of this message by the Metropolitan, and some overly
zealous "converts" went directly to the Matthewites (something Bishop
Gregory himself reproachfully noted in one of his letters). Likewise, it is no
coincidence that those who adhered to moderation and the "royal" path
breathed a sigh of relief and joy after the wise words of the Metropolitan (5).
And this measured, sober position
as the head of the Church (not a sect) was reaffirmed by Metropolitan Vitaly
more than 10 years later, in 1997, at the Lesna Monastery before the clergy of
the Western European Diocese, a moment witnessed by the author of these lines
(and his voice remains preserved in recorded form). The issue here was not
about "apostasy" or "hierarchs who have fallen away"—this
has always been the teaching of ROCOR, as I have often noted, referencing
numerous documents. I repeat, ROCOR has always followed this "royal,"
moderate path, not the "Melehov-style" or "ultra-correct"
one.
* * * *
In connection with this Petition
by Bishop Gregory—which is rather demagogic and speculative—the thought arises:
was Metropolitan Vitaly not correct in retiring (as his first act after
assuming office) the elderly and ailing bishop who, perhaps due to his
condition, had lost discernment in means and in "discerning spirits"?
A bishop for whom personal interests, biases, and grievances had become higher
and more important than the Church's interests? From Bishop Gregory's
subsequent "Suzdal" activities (his "swan song"), it
becomes evident that, unfortunately, this was indeed the case (6). In 1994, he
supported the Valentinov schism (or more precisely, created it), justifying its
"legitimacy" by accusing the Church Abroad of allegedly falling into
the "heresy" of Cyprianism and being subject to its own 1983
anathema. After this, he effectively left ROCOR, with almost his entire family
subsequently ending up in the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC).
Tragically, Bishop Gregory ended his life outside communion with the episcopate
of ROCOR. This is a sad fact, but it cannot be denied.
In fairness, it is necessary to
express gratitude to Bishop Gregory for his many years of selfless service to
the Church. It is unknown what might have happened to the Church Abroad if he
had not been there. As those familiar with him recount, this bishop was often
seen in his office at the Synod when all the staff had already gone home,
sitting late at his desk, piled high with papers. His work was truly titanic
and fruitful, though not without criticisms, "missteps," and
complaints. This is understandable, as his strong character—marked by a
determination to push certain decisions—was not to everyone's liking, sometimes
leading to violations of the principle of conciliarity and infringing on the
rights of other bishops. It is also known that Metropolitan Philaret was not
particularly inclined toward administrative matters (and was often absent from
the Synod), which made Bishop Gregory's administrative role especially
significant.
Bishop Gregory was an intelligent
man, strong-willed, authoritative, a prominent church politician, a talented
spiritual writer, and an analyst for many decades. This inevitably left its
mark on him. Losing this authority and significance was a great temptation for
him. Unfortunately, long-standing power has the potential to corrupt almost
anyone, leading them to do much to continue asserting themselves. Indeed,
Bishop Gregory, despite lacking formal theological education, was an expert in
canons and ecclesiastical law. Yet, possessing a remarkable intellect and
experience, he knew how to conveniently forget or skillfully circumvent them
when it suited his purposes. However, the Petition in question does not address
any illegality in the Synod's actions concerning the Boston clergy.
Some aspects of Bishop Gregory's
complex character and actions are briefly described by Bishop Mitrofan (Znosko)
in his book "The Chronicle of a Life" (Moscow, 1995). As this
bishop recalled in his memoirs: "I had to endure many sorrows because
of the malicious actions of the Synodal Chancellor..."—that is, Bishop
Gregory (Grabbe). Unfortunately, this opinion was not isolated; there were
similar views from other bishops, though space does not permit their inclusion
here.
It is also no secret that the
influential Bishop Gregory was not alone—there was an entire "Grabbe
clan" formed around him: family, friends, disciples, admirers... and then
there were the Greeks as well. All of this created a complex and ambiguous mix.
Now, try separating the "tares" from the "wheat" without
pain.
Subdeacon V. Kirillov
19/02/2013
* * * *
Petition of Bishop
Gregory (Grabbe) Regarding the Boston Case
Your Eminences and Fellow
Hierarchs,
For 55 years, at the calling of
the ever-blessed Metropolitan Anthony and subsequently under his two
successors, I have served the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. I have always
thanked God for this, especially because in recent years the Lord has granted
it to be, perhaps, the last bastion of Truth in the face of the triumphantly
growing "Mystery of Iniquity." Perhaps it is for this reason that
non-Russians have also been drawn to its fold and have become our spiritual
children. Responsibility for them, in addition to our Russian flock, has also
been placed upon us before God.
The aforementioned three
hierarchs built the Russian Church Abroad with love—a love that, while
preaching and bearing witness to the Truth, simultaneously showed leniency
toward human weaknesses, preventing sinful phenomena from destroying its
structure. It was on this foundation that it attracted new children of the
Truth.
Our First Hierarchs always
remembered that it is Truth, united with love, that draws people to the Church
and unites them within it. Deprived of this foundation and built solely on
condemning sins and seeking retribution for them, the Church cannot fulfill its
mission. In such a case, even sincere zeal, according to the Apostle, becomes
not only "sounding brass" but also a ferment of temptation and rapid
decay.
Our departed First Hierarchs
found ways, without unnecessary noise or general scandal, but with love and
discernment, to overcome sinful phenomena, always guided by the 102nd Canon of
the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which I earnestly ask you to reread here in order
to understand me correctly.
At present, there is disarray in
many places, especially among the new children of our Church. Allow me to
express my thoughts regarding the recent decision concerning the
Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which has led to the departure of two
well-established monasteries from us. This could have enormous and very
sorrowful consequences for our dioceses in North America, affecting 10 to 15
parishes.
Metropolitans Anthony and
Anastassy taught me that the benefit or harm of disciplinary measures for the
flock largely depends on whether their fairness and necessity are
unquestionably felt by both the accused and the broader circles of the affected
faithful. Meanwhile, the resolution in the case of Fathers Panteleimon and
Isaac is regarded as unjust by the overwhelming majority of our flock,
particularly the Greek faithful in the Boston area, and has caused confusion
and indignation among them. The same attitude is shared by the entire clergy of
this area (around 10 individuals). It is also important to note that all the
parishes in the area, except for Epiphany Parish, whose rector was in conflict
with the Transfiguration Monastery, are closely connected with it and hold Fr.
Panteleimon in high regard.
Another detail to consider is
that the property of the Transfiguration Monastery, accumulated by Fr.
Panteleimon from nothing, is worth millions. The removal of its founder and the
appointment of Archbishop Anthony as investigator and, even temporarily, as
abbot, could easily raise suspicions among the Greeks that the matter was
initiated with selfish motives on our part.
For many who are familiar with
the ecclesiastical situation in the Boston area, it remains a question whether
the Synod was aware of all these details when making its decision.
Now we are faced with a great
spiritual wound and the scandal of many people, and the criticism and
condemnation will fall upon the First Hierarch and all the Bishops. As someone
who knows this flock—since in recent years Metropolitan Philaret was unable to
travel there and sent me in his place—my heart breaks at the thought of their
temptation and the possible consequences. Therefore, I implore all the Most
Reverend members of the Council to consider urgent measures to address this
grave illness that has arisen among them, so they may feel that the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad is not a cruel stepmother but a loving mother.
Your Eminences,
The Boston case is of such
magnitude that responsibility for it before God lies not with one diocesan
bishop alone but with all the members of the Council, since the decisions,
unfortunately, were not made by him personally but conciliar. All of them will
answer for the monks, nuns, and faithful who may depart from us, unable to
endure this trial. How will we feel when, because of our actions, we see them
on the left side at the Last Judgment?
I ask forgiveness for breaking my
silence and sounding the alarm, even though I have been retired.
Bishop Gregory
Below is the canonical rule
mentioned in Bishop Gregory’s Petition, so that everyone may judge for
themselves how applicable it is to the Boston case, given the unrepentance of
the transgressor.
From the 102nd Canon of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council: "Those who have received from God the authority to
bind and loose must consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the
sinner to repent, and thus apply a remedy appropriate to the ailment, so that,
by not observing due measure in either direction, they do not forfeit the
salvation of the one who is ailing. For the disease of sin is not uniform, but
diverse and multifaceted, producing many branches of harm, from which evil
flows abundantly until it is checked by the power of the healer. Therefore, it
is fitting for one who practices the spiritual art of healing to first examine
the disposition of the sinner, observing whether they are inclined toward
health or, on the contrary, by their own habits, are nurturing the disease and
how they are conducting themselves in the meantime. If the patient does not
resist the physician and heals their spiritual wound through the application of
the prescribed remedies, then mercy should be measured out to them appropriately."
Russian source:
http://internetsobor.org/index.php/stati/avtorskaya-kolonka/bostonskij-vopros-nravstvennyj-ili-ekkleziologicheskij
