The Bitter Fruits of the Union of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and The Moscow Patriarchate

Below this introduction is a general epistle by His Eminence Archbishop Andronik of Syracuse and Saint Nicholas Convent. In it he exposes just a small portion of the change that our former brothers have gone through by their  union with the so-called Moscow Patriarchate.

As a illustration that this noticed change of character is not something new or unique we present here first an excerpt from an address from Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitzev) of Jordanville Monastery, NY. delivered at the Diocesan Council of the Russian Church Abroad in New York City between November 1/14 – 3/16, 1965. Published in “Orthodox Life” #6 1965

“All that has been said here must be kept firmly in mind, insofar as we come to comprehend the spiritual state of the world. Do we remain successively tied to our holy past to such an extent, as to look through its eyes on all that is happening around us? If we have blended with our environment, making common cause with it – all is over! We are already not with Christ. We are already incapable of “hearing” not only “Moses and the prophets,” but the Risen Christ Himself. We are in the power of that, by which an apostate world is living: faith in Lie!

Nor is there any need to think that immersion into this dark element is the result of some, so to speak, formal act of renunciation of Christ’s Truth. In infinitely varied forms does Falsehood creep up upon us, poisoning, and finally, also substituting our consciousness, if only we do not stand on constant spiritual guard over our witnessing [to the faith Ed.]

How many similar occurrences happened to be observed in the Far East, where the paths of God and the paths of Antichrist were fantastically interlaced in the vain hustle and bustle of life. One event is to me especially memorable. I came to be under one roof for a certain time with a very worthy priest (batiushka) under conditions when around us was taking place one of those paroxysms of fascination for sovietism, of which there were many among Russians abroad. He was an invalid who moved about with difficulty, but quite capable of serving. Well, one day he says that he has decided to go over to the Soviet Church: there is no danger in this for him, as he is perfectly well aware of what she really represents, but in his invalid state he does not have the strength to employ himself in any other way … This shift took place immediately, easily and simply. We continued to live under the one roof – and I, in one conversation with him, happen to use the habitual expression “Soviet church.” He interrupts me: – “What, Soviet church? There is only a Russian Church!”… Within a few days – a complete metamorphosis. And this came to be observed constantly. When a man took a Soviet passport -he became a different person. You walk around Shanghai with the cross and come to the home of one such “returnee” – already there is something wrong, both in the manners and appearance of people. A substitution has occurred of the inner “I”. And one may well ponder here, over what mystic significance a signature has. Invariably in the Soviet consulate, after general and friendly discussions, it was offered in conclusion to: – please affix your signature! But quite apart from Christ-selling formalism, the very inclusion of oneself into this atmosphere of conciliation – let it take the most seemingly innocent forms – was capable of changing a man .”

Taken from: “The Spiritual State of the Contemporary World” by Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev) an address delivered at the Diocesan Council of the Russian Church Abroad in New York City between November 1/14 – 3/16, 1965. Published in “Orthodox Life” #6 1965

The Bitter Fruits of the Union of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and The Moscow Patriarchate

(Russian text below)

In 1983, the Russian Church Abroad under the leadership of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (whom the ROCA glorified in 2008) anathematized the heresy of ecumenism.

In 2012, ROCOR-MP filed a lawsuit against the parish of the Protection of the Mother of God in Buena, N.J., during the course of which Bishop Gabriel (ROCOR-MP) was asked: Is it true that in 1983 the ROCA anathematized ecumenism? To this Bishop Gabriel replied that if one refers to the document entitled “Act of Canonical Communion,” it states that “previously issued acts which impede the fullness of canonical communion are deemed to be invalid or have expired” (point 13). It is strange to hear such words from a hierarch of the Orthodox Church. For when the Church anathematizes a certain heresy, this is for eternity and no hierarchs can annul this anathema, particularly the Moscow Patriarchate which is actively involved in ecumenism. For example when the Orthodox Church anathematized the heretic Arius, he personally was not able to lift that anathema.

Since the part of ROCA that united with the Moscow Patriarchate commemorates in its services the most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia as its lord and father, hence it has fallen also under this anathema. And as we read in the prayers before confession, “has fallen under one’s own anathema”.

When the first commission was formed in 2004 for dialogue between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate many among the ROCA flock reacted with great caution, knowing that the Moscow Patriarchate participates actively in the ecumenical movement. Similarly, the issue of sergianism is no less important for the ROCA faithful. Nevertheless, the ROCA hierarchs assured us that they would influence the Moscow Patriarchate from the inside. In other words, they would actively oppose the heresy of ecumenism and sergianism, but they did not keep their promise.

It is interesting to note, that in 2013 the Moscow Patriarchate removed dozens of the confessors and new martyrs of Russia from a canonized status and none of the hierarchs or clergy of the ROCOR-MP voiced objections to this action except for Protopriest Vladimir Malchenko from Toronto (a fellow classmate of mine from seminary) who wrote a letter in defense of the new martyrs of Russia that were subject to this action.

Another interesting fact is that at the pre-sobor meetings in Chambesy, Switzerland (October 10-17, 2015, and January 21-28, 2016), a document entitled “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” was developed and subsequently ratified at the Hierarchical Sobor of the Moscow Patriarchia in February, 2016. There is no information as to whether even a single hierarch of the ROCOR-MP at this Sobor expressed opposition to this document.

“The announcement of the forthcoming meeting of the Most Holy Patriarch Kyrill with Pope Francis of Rome” according to the words of Protopriest Alexander Lebedev (Secretary of Inter-orthodox relations of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR-MP) “was received by the clergy and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad completely calmly,” which also eloquently bears witness to the real attitude of the higher clergy and members of the ROCOR-MP toward ecumenism.

Where is the active resistance from inside, which the ROCOR-MP hierarchs promised us? Can we then assert that the ROCOR-MP has become that very yeast which, according to the words of Archbishop Mark (Arndt) should be leaven for the dough of the Moscow Patriarchate?

The hierarchs of the ROCA always openly and freely spoke out and wrote in defense of Orthodoxy and their voices were heard by the entire Orthodox world. Among the many were: Metropolitan Anthony, Metropolitan Anastasy, the Sain’t end Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Vitaly, Archbishop Averky (Taushev), Sain’t end Hierarch Archbishop John of Shanghai and many others. If the current hierarchs of the ROCOR-MP are themselves a part of the ecumenical community and speak out against certain of its decisions, then their voices no longer have the former freedom and power, do not sound convincing and are not capable of changing anything. The impression being created is that the purpose of these statements is not to resist ecumenical innovations, but only resorting to demonstrations of trying to “control the situation”, which lulls the vigilance of their own flock, many of whom are not indifferent toward the future of the Church Abroad and Holy Orthodoxy.

+Andronik Archbishop of Syracuse and St. Nicolas Church

7/20 April, Venerable George, bishop of Miletene.

Горькие Плоды Унии между РПЦЗ и Московской Патриархией

В 1983 г. Русская Зарубежная Церковь при Высокопреосвященнейшем Митрополите Филарете (которого РПЦЗ прославила в 2008 г.) предала анафеме ересь экуменизма.

В 2012 г. РПЦЗ МП подала иск против Покровского прихода в Вьюне, Нью Джерси, на котором адвокат задал епископу Гавриилу вопрос: это правда, что в 1983 г. РПЦЗ предала анафеме экуменизм? На это епископ Гавриил ответил, что если Вы посмотрите на документ об Акте о Воссоединении, там сказано, что «ранее изданные акты, препятствовавшие полноте канонического общения, признаются недействительными, либо утратившими силу» (пункт 13). Странно слышать от архиерея Православной Церкви подобные слова. Ведь, когда Церковь накладывает анафему на какую-либо ересь, то это уже на вечность, и никакие архиереи не могут эту анафему отменить, тем паче, Московская Патриархия, которая активно участвует в экуменизме. К примеру, когда Православная Церковь наложила анафему на ересиарха Ария, то он сам не может эту анафему с себя снять.

Так как РПЦЗ МП воссоединилась с Московской Патриархией и возносит в своих молитвах Господина и Отца нашего Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси, то она тоже пала под эту анафему. И как мы читаем в молитве перед исповедью: «Под свою анафему падоша».

Когда в 2004 году была создана первая комиссия по диалогу между РПЦЗ и Московской Патриархией, многие из паствы РПЦЗ с осторожностью приняли это, зная, что Московская Патриархия активно участвует в экуменическом движении. А также и вопрос о сергианстве не менее важен для верующих РПЦЗ. Но нас уверяли архиереи РПЦЗ, что мы будем действовать на Московскую Патриархию изнутри, иными словами, активно противостоять ереси экуменизма и сергианства. Но они не сдержали свои обещания.

Интересно, что в 2013 г. Московская Патриархия деканонизировала десятки новомученников и исповедников Российских. И никто из иерархов и священников РПЦЗ МП не возразил против этого акта, кроме протоиерея Владимира Мальченко из Торонто (моего одноклассника по семинарии), который написал письмо в защиту деканонизированных новомучеников Российских.

Также интересный факт, что на предсоборных совещаниях в Шамбези (10-17 октября 2015 г. и 21-28 января 2016 г.) был разработан документ «Отношения Православной Церкви с остальным христианским миром», который позже был принят на Архиерейском Соборе РПЦ МП в феврале 2016 г. Нет сведений о том, что хотя бы один архиерей РПЦЗ МП на этом Соборе высказался против данного документа.

«Сообщение о предстоящей встрече Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла с папой Римским Франциском, по словам протоиерея Александра Лебедева (секретаря Архиерейского Синода РПЦЗ МП по межправославным отношениям), было воспринято священнослужителями и верующими Русской Православной Церкви Заграницей вполне спокойно», что тоже красноречиво свидетельствует о том, каково истинное отношение священноначалия и членов РПЦЗ МП к экуменизму.

Где же обещанное нам активное противостояние изнутри иерархов РПЦЗ МП? Можем ли мы утверждать, что РПЦЗ МП стала теми дрожжами, которые, по словам Архиепископа Марка (Арднт), должны всквасить тесто Московской Патриархии?

Архиереи РПЦЗ всегда свободно и открыто высказывались и писали в защиту Православия и их голос был слышен всему православному миру. Примерами тому, как защищали веру наши зарубежные архиереи: Митрополит Антоний, Митрополит Анастасий, Святитель Митрополит Филарет, Митрополит Виталий, Архиепископ Аверкий (Таушев), Архиепископ Иоанн Шанхайский и многие другие. Если же нынешние архиереи РПЦЗ МП, являющиеся сами частью экуменического сообщества, и высказываются против некоторых его решений, то их голос не имеет уже былой свободы и силы, не звучит убедительно и не способен что-либо изменить. Создается впечатление, что цель этих высказываний не в том, чтобы противостоять экуменическим новшествам, а в том, чтобы путем демонстрации «контроля над ситуацией» усыпить бдительность собственной паствы, в числе которой есть еще не мало людей не равнодушных к будущему Зарубежной Церкви и Святого Православия.

+ Андроник,

Архиепископ Сиракузский и Свято-Никольский

7/20 Апреля, Преп. Георгия, епископа Мелитинского.