By Subdeacon Nektarios, M.A.
Introduction
Within the last few years in the Orthodox Church in the United States, the question of what makes a church canonical has come to the surface. Many Orthodox Christians, catechumens and inquirers are being told that in order to be considered a “canonical church” one has to be in communion with the so-called local churches. In order to answer this question, we have to look to the Fathers of the Church. One such father who gives us insight into this matter is Saint Ignatius of Antioch. After he instructs us to separate from heretics saying, “that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public,” his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans teaches us where the canonical church is [1]. In Chapter VIII, Saint Ignatius teaches us saying,
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid [2].
The two criteria for maintaining apostolic succession are that the bishops have been canonically consecrated by bishops who have historical apostolic succession themselves and that they are maintaining the Orthodox faith. In the recent history of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad prior to the 2007 union with the Moscow Patriarchate, there have been many different accusations leveled at this jurisdiction concerning its canonicity in the past.
Often people accused them of being schismatics for not being in communion with any of the local churches or ancient patriarchates; while others have been under the false impression that ROCOR was in communion with both the Serbian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate during their whole history up until the union of 2007 with Moscow. As many may also know, the Church Abroad was for a long period of time in communion with the Greek Old Calendarist Churches to include both the Matthewites and Florinites at various points in time. This has given rise to historical revisionists who have denied that this communion existed even though the historical documentation for these unions is plentiful.
Many of these historical revisionists, who like to claim that the Greek Old Calendarist Church is schismatic for not being in communion with a local church, also like to embellish the history of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the Serbian Patriarchate and the Jerusalem Patriarchate, so that the ROCOR cannot be put in the same category as the Greek Old Calendarist Churches.
It is a historical fact that the Russian Church Abroad was in communion with the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchate during its early history. However, that did not last as long as many revisionists would like us to believe, and of course, according to the logic of some, this would have made the ROCOR schismatic as well. To understand this history, we have to examine the historical evidence that exists concerning the eucharistic relationships between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates.
The Jerusalem Patriarchate
First, let us analyze the relationship between the Church Abroad and the Jerusalem Patriarchate. To examine this history, we can look to the Moscow Patriarchate Post-Graduate and Doctoral University of Sts. Cyril and Methodius and a doctoral dissertation that was entirely dedicated to the subject concerning the relationship between the ROCOR and the Jerusalem Patriarchate. This dissertation entitled, The Activity of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem in 1948-1967 by Dr. Palamarenko Evgeny Viktorovich, details at great length the relationship between the Church Abroad and the Jerusalem Patriarchate. According to the detailed history by Dr. Viktorovich,
Until 1945, the Jerusalem Patriarchate maintained communion with representatives of the ROCOR, without identifying them as schismatics or hindering their activities. There were isolated cases of the Jerusalem Patriarch not recognizing the heads of the Mission, but overall, prayerful communion and the possibility of co-service were preserved until the historical visit of Patriarch Alexy I with a delegation from Moscow in 1945. Under the influence of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate reconsidered its relationship with the representatives of the ROCOR in Palestine, delicately indicating to them the necessity of submission to the Moscow Patriarchate, while simultaneously ceasing prayerful communion with them and no longer allowing them to concelebrate in its churches.
According to the memoirs of the pilgrim Alexandra Gavrilova, in 1946 the Russian metochion was surrounded by a long and high stone wall, and the Trinity Cathedral towered in the middle of the square. Within the walls of the metochion there were two main gates and a small wicket in one corner, which were guarded by Palestinian sentries, perhaps because most of the Russian buildings were occupied by various government offices or because the metochion was a strategic point. According to her, the terrorists had previously tried to blow up the Trinity Cathedral, as evidenced by the damaged dome.
Considering the presence of the REM [Russian Ecclesiastical Mission] under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR during the period of the British Mandate, it should be noted the positive role played by the church leadership abroad in the preservation of Russian church property under the mandatory administration. In 1948, in connection with the arrival of the REM [Russian Ecclesiastical Mission] of the Moscow Patriarchate and the disagreement with the latter on the part of the REM of ROCOR, the Russian church representation in Jerusalem, a hundred years after its establishment, was divided into two wings, supporters and opponents of the Moscow Patriarchate. The following decades were associated with the sheer antagonism that Russian Orthodox Christians, both ordinary believers and representatives of the hierarchy, felt towards each other. The arrival of representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, which radically renewed the composition of the REM and the directions of its activities, marked the beginning of a new period of the Russian Orthodox presence in Palestine [3].
As we can see, the Jerusalem Patriarchate did maintain communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1945 and that the Church Abroad was in no way considered schismatic by this patriarchate. However, we have to further ask how long did this communion last? Did this eucharistic communion between the ROCOR and the Jerusalem Patriarchate last as long as the modern historical revisionists would like us to believe? Dr Viktorovich continues in his historical dissertation saying,
An important event in the subsequent revival of the presence of the REM in Jerusalem, affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate, was the visit of Patriarch Alexy I to Palestine in June 1945. The arrival of the Moscow Patriarch in Jerusalem opens a chain of events that were preparatory to the resumption of the service of the Moscow Patriarchate’s REM in Palestine in 1948.
Before his trip to the Middle East in 1945, Patriarch Alexy I informed the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church of his desire to visit a number of countries, the first on the list of which was Palestine, and also informed about the composition of the seven persons selected to accompany him. In fact, the sequence of Patriarch Alexy I’s visits to the Middle Eastern states was as follows: Lebanon – Syria – Palestine – Egypt.
The question of Patriarch Alexy I’s trip to the Middle East and Palestine was raised by the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church with Stalin on May 3, 1945, and on May 4 it received a positive answer. It is possible that the trip was initiated by the Soviet government in the context of relations between the Soviet leadership and the Russian Orthodox Church in the interests of Moscow’s policy in the Mediterranean, a topic that is practically unexplored at present.
At the same time, the position of the chairman of the Council for the Affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church, G.G. Karpov, who called on the Russian Orthodox Church to use church channels in the political interests of the Soviet Union, is well known. As a result, the Council launched numerous initiatives to involve the Russian Orthodox Church in international work. It was intended to use the Church as a tool to strengthen Russian influence abroad, including in the largest cities of the world, where embassy churches and missions had previously operated.
One of the reasons for Metropolitan Gregory (Chukov) visiting Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, and later Palestine, in November-December 1946 for talks with the Primates of the Local Churches, was the intention of the country’s leadership to exert influence on the Eastern Patriarchates, which, in the opinion of the Soviet authorities, enjoyed great influence in the Orthodox world.
It is possible that the ecclesiastical policy of the USSR in the Middle East pursued the goal of placing the Soviet Union among the states that hoped to participate in the collective guardianship of Palestine.
On May 24 and 25, 1945, Deputy Head of the Middle East Department of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, N.P. Ivanov, and other employees held a conversation and consultation with Patriarch Alexy I and his entourage in order to “get acquainted with the countries of the Middle East (climate, communication routes, local customs and mores, etiquette, currency and prices).” On May 27, 1945, Liturgy and a moleben were served at the Epiphany Cathedral in Moscow, and a farewell dinner was held at the Patriarchate. On May 28, 1945, at 3:30 a.m., a specially-provided aircraft took off from Moscow.
The month-long trip to the Middle East included only a five-day stay of the delegation in Palestine (from June 1 to June 5, 1945). During this time, Patriarch Alexy I was received by the British High Commissioner in Palestine, Lord Gort, and other dignitaries; He performed the blessing of water on the Jordan, visited the Gorny Monastery and a number of other places. In a telegram to Moscow, Patriarch Alexy I reported that in Jerusalem the members of the delegation “met with great attention from the patriarch, the government, the clergy and the people.” At the same time, by order of the head of the REM ROCOR, Archimandrite Anthony (Sinkevich), several churches in Jerusalem were closed so that the Patriarch could not visit them. As reported by Reuters, these measures caused outrage among the members of the Russian colony in Jerusalem, and Archimandrite Anthony’s secretary asked for a personal meeting with Patriarch Alexy I to apologize for the behavior of the chief. Archimandrites Meletios (Rozov) and Ambrose (Sorokin) also met secretly with Patriarch Alexy I.
From the report of Archimandrite Anthony (Sinkevich) it is known that in the Russian monasteries on the Mount of Olives and in Gethsemane, Patriarch Alexy I unexpectedly appeared, accompanied by his own and a Greek retinue. In the churches of both monasteries, he went into the altar. In Gethsemane, Abbot Seraphim (Sedov) defiantly refused to take a blessing from Patriarch Alexy I, and the nuns of the monasteries did not approach the Patriarch. It is noteworthy that half a century later, almost the same situation was repeated during the visit of Patriarch Alexy II to Jerusalem, when the abbess of the Mount of Olives Monastery refused to allow the Patriarch to enter the monastery.
As a result of Patriarch Alexy I’s visit to Palestine, in the summer of 1945, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem ceased its ties with representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as they did not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate. From that time on, the concelebration of the clergy of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem with the clergy of ROCOR in Palestine ceased. The latter were admitted to the holy places only as pilgrims. In turn, the Greek and Arab clergy were issued an order by Patriarch Timothy not to participate in divine services in ROCOR churches, although their visits without serving in them subsequently repeatedly took place [4].
As we can see this eucharistic communion was broken very early in the life of ROCOR in 1945 as a result of Patriarch Alexy I of the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate entering into communion with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. During this period of history, it was very well known that the Russian Church Abroad would not enter into Eucharistic communion with those jurisdictions that were in communion with the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, which was not only unrepentant for their capitulation to the godless-soviet authorities in 1927 by Sergius but who, by this time, were actively cooperating with the soviet government.
It should be noted that over the course of time, although the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Jerusalem Patriarchate were not in Eucharistic communion with each other and did not concelebrate with each other as these letters show, some members of the Russian Church Abroad living in Jerusalem continued to commemorate the Jerusalem Patriarchate and use antimensions originally provided by the Jerusalem Patriarchate according to some sources. The reason for this could be multifaceted, possibly due to ignorance, laziness, indifference or out of habit, but this was a localized issue/practice and as the history shows was not applicable to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Jerusalem Patriarchate relations as a whole.
The Serbian Patriarchate
Just like the relationship between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the ROCOR, many people also have developed a misunderstanding of the relationship between the Serbian Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as well. Many are under the impression that ROCOR was in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate for their entire existence so that they can claim ROCOR was “canonical” on the basis that they were in communion with a local church.
Many conservative new calendarists, historical revisionists, and “resist within” ideologues who are promulgating the narrative that the Greek Old Calendarist are schismatics because they are not in communion with a local church are trying to skew the history of ROCOR to say that they were always in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate so they can spin ROCOR’s history to suit their historical narrative and support their ideological agenda. However, sifting through the historical evidence available uncovers the historical reality, and we can see that what is being displayed as truth by many historical revisionists is in reality pure obfuscation to push a specific narrative. The first place to look is in the letters between hierarchs that were written contemporaneously. The first primary source historical material we will examine is a memorandum from Sergianist Metropolitan Benjamin (Fedchenkov) who wrote,
Memo from Metropolitan Benjamin (Fedchenkov) with proposals regarding the clerics of the Russian Church Abroad in Yugoslavia January 27, 1945
Note on Russian Churches in Serbia Glory to God, the Karlovac schism in Serbia has ended! The remaining leaders (Metropolitan Anastasius and 2-3 other bishops) fled to the Germans. The remnants of the Serbian emigration do not require special care, except for what is already provided by the Serbian Patriarchate. However, I believe that for the sake of maintaining ties with the Mother Church of Russia and for clarifying the position of the Russian flock in Serbia, it is proposed through the Serbian Church to do the following: a) to commemorate - after the Serbian Patriarch - the name of the Patriarch of the Russian Church, b) for the clergy to renounce in writing the Karlovac center (Metropolitan Anastasius and other bishops), c) and to ask the Serbian Church to definitively and decisively put an end to the “Karlovac” schism.
[Signed]
Metropolitan Benjamin [5].
This letter from this Sergianist Metropolitan is referencing ROCOR and Metropolitan Anastasius as a schism from the so-called Moscow Patriarchate, which in times past was referred to as the “Karlovci schism” since the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad lived in Karlovic, Serbia with the blessing of then Patriarch Varnava. This January 1945 letter tells us that it was on the agenda of the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate to coerce the Serbians to break communion with the ROCOR in favor of recognizing the Soviet Patriarchate instead.
In a letter dated April 18th, 1945, from Metropolitan Joseph (Tsviyovich) the Metropolitan of Skopje to Bishop Sergey (Larin) a representative of the Moscow Patriarchate, is responding to a letter that the Sergianist Bishop Sergey (Larin) had previously wrote to the Metropolitan of Skopje. Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje delivers to Sergey (Larin) a decision of the Serbian Patriarchate concerning the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and its hierarchs saying,
Letter from Metropolitan Joseph (Tsviyovich) to Bishop Sergey (Larin) in response to the proposal to condemn the Russian Church Abroad [6].
April 18, 1945
To His Grace, Bishop of Kirovograd and Administrator of the Odessa Diocese, Mr. Sergey, as a representative of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
Regarding YOUR fraternal esteemed letter dated April 16, 1945, in which you, as the Representative of HIS HOLINESS THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA, kindly expressed a desire for our Church to also condemn the activities of the Russian emigrant episcopate and clergy directed against the Mother Russian Church, as the Council of Russian Bishops on September 8, 1943 in Moscow condemned, we have the honor, based on the decision of the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, to provide the following response:
The Serbian Orthodox Church, guided by established canonical order, has always maintained canonical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and recognized the Orthodox Church headed by the late Patriarch Tikhon as the only lawful and canonical Russian Church.
Our Church did this despite all the difficulties it encountered in its communication, either due to the divisions within the Russian Church itself or due to its failure to establish relations with other Orthodox Churches in the East. As evidence of this, we cite the fact that our Church never recognized not only separate church factions that illegally arose within the Russian Church but also the independence of its separate parts, such as the Churches in Poland, Ukraine, Finland, Latvia, and others.
Based on such a position, the Serbian Orthodox Church has since 1920 accepted some refugee bishops and priests of the Russian Church onto its territory as guests, granting them certain rights of church activity among its Russian flock of refugees. It did this out of great love for the Russian Church and the Russian people and with the aim of preserving their national consciousness and church customs at that time. When these fleeing Russian bishops and clergy were an integral part of the Russian hierarchy, which was undergoing persecution.
When the division occurred between the Patriarchal Church in Russia and the fleeing Russian hierarchy abroad, the Serbian Orthodox Church, starting from 1922, always endeavored and insisted on their reconciliation. It did not wish to interfere in the internal affairs and disagreements of the Russian Church, especially since the Russian church circumstances in Russia were not yet established and clarified due to the revolution.
At that time, our Church found it challenging to comprehend the true church situation in Russia because there were cases when even the Patriarch Tikhon, who had reposed in God, was condemned at local councils in Russia. Due to the state of affairs in Russia, some Orthodox Churches in the East reached a point where they did not recognize the Tikhonite Patriarchate in Russia, as was the case, as far as we remember, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself.
Now, when normal church circumstances have been established in Russia, and when our Church is able to freely, canonically, and unimpededly communicate with the Patriarchal Russian Church, which it has always recognized as the only lawful Church in Russia, the Serbian Church is ready to sever all church communion with all those church factions of the Russian hierarchy that the Russian Patriarchy has condemned as illegal and non-canonical according to existing canonical regulations.
As for Archbishop Hermogenes, who, through his actions, caused great harm to the Serbian Church, our Church will bring him to trial and condemn him if the Russian Church does not do so, but we would prefer the Russian Church to take this action.
Based on the above, we request that the Russian Church kindly deliver its resolution, from which it will be clear which Russian hierarchs are specifically considered excommunicated as schismatics, with whom the Serbian Orthodox Church and all other autocephalous Orthodox Churches must cease their canonical relations and church communion. When such a resolution is received, the Holy Hierarchical Synod will immediately cease all church communion with them and promptly inform the Holy Hierarchical Council about it.
To Your Grace, a devoted brother and co-servant in Christ,
For the Chairman of the Holy Hierarchical Synod,
Metropolitan of Skopje, Joseph
The Russian translation fully corresponds to the Serbian original and is certified by the signature and appropriate seal.
Rev. Nikolay Alagich
As is clear in this preceding 1945 letter, the Serbian Patriarchate at this time is now changing their position on the canonicity and legitimacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in favor of the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate, despite previously having supported the ROCOR fully and having been in Eucharistic communion with them.
In a response letter from Sergianist Bishop Sergey (Larin) to Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje dated April 21st, 1945, the Moscow Patriarchate gets even stronger in their demands that the Serbian Patriarchate must immediately cease all communion with the Russian Church Abroad without any ambiguity in the matter. We can also see Bishop Sergey in true Soviet and Sergianist fashion denying that there was any persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the period of the USSR and also refers to the Russian Church Abroad as schismatics who separated from the so-called “Mother Church.” It is this same narrative today that many of these conservative new calendarists are pushing as part of their renovationist history. In this lengthy letter, Soviet MP Bishop Sergey Larin writes to Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje,
Letter from Bishop Sergey (Larin) to Metropolitan Joseph (Tsviyovich) and the Synod of the Serbian Church demanding the termination of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad [7].
April 21, 1945
Having received Your Grace's fraternal letter, I could not help but notice some ambiguity in its presentation:
Your Eminence mentioned that the Serbian Orthodox Church provided support to Russian hierarchs-emigrants, whom, in your opinion, were an integral part of the Russian Orthodox Church undergoing persecution. What persecution of the Church in Russia (USSR) are you writing about? The Russian Orthodox Church as a whole did not experience any persecution. In this case, Your Eminence relied on the emigrant and other hostile Russian press, which, as a representative of HIS HOLINESS THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW, I cannot but regret.
Your Eminence was pleased to outline in the following manner the formation and separation from the Mother Church of the so-called “Archbishopric Synod” in Sremski Karlovci: “When the division occurred between the Patriarchal Church in Russia and the fleeing Russian hierarchy abroad, the Serbian Orthodox Church, starting from 1922, always endeavored and insisted on their reconciliation.”
In my understanding, reconciliation can only be between sister churches of equal status, not between the Mother Church and a self-styled assembly of schismatics who have arbitrarily separated from it. We cannot but regret that the Serbian Orthodox Church officially supported our schismatics of the emigrant hierarchy and its central organ, the so-called “Archbishopric Synod.”
In my letter of April 16 of this year, I had the honor to inform Your Eminence and very clearly state which emigrant bishops we consider to be in schism with the Russian Church. Firstly: Metropolitan Anastasius (Gribanovsky), and secondly: all the foreign hierarchs-emigrants included in the jurisdiction of the so-called “Archbishopric Synod.”
The Russian Orthodox Church hopes that Your Eminence, Your Grace, and the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, in accordance with the expression of Your will in your esteemed letter of April 18 of this year, will sever all canonical and eucharistic communion with the so-called “Archbishopric Synod” as a whole and with Metropolitan Anastasius (Gribanovsky) in particular as schismatics, as well as with their followers both in Yugoslavia and in all countries wherever they may be.
Please inform the Heads of the Autocephalous Churches about this.
Your Eminence,
I have the honor to be your brother, co-servant, supplicant, and most humble servant
Bishop of Kirovograd
Representative of HIS HOLINESS THE PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND ALL RUSSIA
In response to this previous letter to Soviet Bishop Sergey (Larin), Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje writes a reply dated April 24th, 1945, this time to Patriarch Alexy I informing them of the cessation of communion between the Serbian Orthodox Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. In this letter, Metropolitan Joseph of Skopje as the Deputy of the Patriarch of Serbia writes,
Letter from Metropolitan Joseph (Tsviyovich) to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy reporting the cessation of communion between the Serbian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad [8].
April 24, 1945
Your Holiness!
Regarding the letter from the Representative of YOUR HOLINESS, His Grace Bishop of Kirovograd and Administrator of the Odessa Diocese, Mr. Sergey, dated April 21, 1945, in which His Grace, in connection with our letter of April 18, 1945, Syn. No. 664/entry 175 of 1945, reminds that among the Russian bishops-emigrants in schism with the Russian Church, first of all, Metropolitan Anastasius (Gribanovsky) and all those under the jurisdiction of the so-called Archbishopric Synod of foreign hierarchs-emigrants must be considered - I have the honor to respond to YOUR HOLINESS as follows:
Although His Grace Bishop Sergey of Kirovograd did not provide a full response to our aforementioned letter of April 18/5, 1945, Syn. No. 664/entry 175 of 1945, as he did not convey the resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943, from which not only the names of Russian bishops-emigrants could be seen, but also the canonical reasons based on which these hierarchs were recognized as schismatics at the time - the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church nonetheless takes note of the statement of His Grace Bishop Sergey of Kirovograd as a statement made on behalf of the Russian Church and terminates all canonical and eucharistic communion with Metropolitan Anastasius and those Russian bishops-emigrants who are under his jurisdiction or under the jurisdiction of the so-called Overseas Russian Archbishopric Synod, which was condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church.
This question in its entirety will be presented for final consideration and determination to the Holy Hierarchical Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, as this issue may be the subject of discussion not only in our Church but also in other Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, before whom these condemned bishops may have the opportunity to provide their explanations.
Your Holiness,
In Christ’s love, a supplicant and devout admirer
Deputy of HIS HOLINESS THE PATRIARCH OF SERBIA
Metropolitan of Skopje, Joseph
In this final letter it is made abundantly clear that eucharistic communion with the Serbian Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was ended in the spring of 1945. In another Memorandum from the Patriarchates of Moscow, Antioch, and Jerusalem threaten the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with ecclesiastical judgment for ROCOR’s so-called schism from the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate. This letter reads,
Memorandum of the Patriarchs of Moscow Alexy, of Alexandria Christoforos, of Antioch Alexander, and of Jerusalem Timotheos regarding the attitude toward the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad [9].
After June 14, 1945
A portion of the Russian church hierarchy, which emigrated in 1920 from Russia under the leadership of Metropolitan Antony, while abroad, separated from the Mother Russian Church and organized an independent Supreme Church Administration in Sremski Karlovci.
After a series of admonitions, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchate, Metropolitan Sergius, in 1930 imposed a prohibition on this church group, led after the death of Metropolitan Antony by Metropolitan Anastasius.
During the last war with Nazi Germany, the majority of hierarchs and clergy of this Karlovac orientation openly sided with Hitler and offered public prayers for his victory. In the near future, the Moscow Patriarchate will appeal to the Karlovci community with a final call for their return to the fold of the Mother Church, and upon those who remain deaf to this call, will declare ecclesiastical judgment for the schism committed and for betrayal of the common Christian cause in the fight against fascism.
Alexy, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
Fully agree with the sentiment of this address
Alexander III, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East
Timotheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem
The historical evidence clearly shows that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) was not in communion with the local churches for the majority of its existence, particularly from the perspective of the Serbian Patriarchate. What is also noteworthy about these events, in which the World Orthodox Patriarchates severed communion with ROCOR, is that they took place in the spring and summer of 1945, under the direction and influence of the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate and the government of the U.S.S.R.
The correspondence between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Serbian Patriarchate makes it evident that both sides mutually acknowledged the Russian Church Abroad as a schismatic body. As a result, the Serbian Patriarchate ceased to maintain any Eucharistic communion with ROCOR due to its refusal to recognize the Soviet-installed Moscow Patriarchate as the "Mother Church" of Russia.
However, as the 1960s approached, the situation within ROCOR itself became both clear and ambiguous regarding the Serbian Patriarchate and Eucharistic communion with it. This issue became a major point of contention among the bishops, starting in 1964, and grew in importance not only during official synodal discussions but also in private correspondence. The more ‘strict’ bishops, such as Saint Philaret of New York, adhered to one position, while Anthony of Geneva, known for his leniency and liberal worldview, held an opposing stance. Anthony even challenged the First Hierarch and sought to align himself with the Serbian Patriarchate.
In 1967, during the synodal meetings that year, one topic on the official agenda was “On the Attitude Towards the Serbian Patriarchate: A Report by Bishop Sava.” Bishop Sava presented his first report on the Serbian Patriarchate on May 18th-19th. Unfortunately, the text of this report is not available. At the end of the report, in the minutes from Protocol No. 11 from May 30th, 1967, Archbishop Seraphim provided a report concerning the Serbian Patriarchate, which states:
At the conclusion of Bishop Sava's report, Archbishop Seraphim gives an additional report on the same topic.
After both reports, the Chairman states that, due to the late hour, their discussion can only take place the following day. However, he wishes to say a few words himself, and perhaps the Council will agree with him. When he previously spoke about the Serbian Church, he was often accused of allegedly claiming that the Serbian Church was free. He never said this. Freedom comes in different forms, as does lack of freedom. The Church cannot be entirely free in a country ruled by a communist regime. But there is a difference between external freedom and internal freedom. His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon lived under worse conditions than the Church in Yugoslavia, yet he did not lose his internal freedom. Who was less externally free than Patriarch Hermogenes? Yet, he preserved his internal freedom. The greatness of Patriarch Tikhon lay in the fact that, while he sometimes yielded externally, he simultaneously preserved the Church’s internal freedom.
At the previous Council, it was stated that there was no certainty that the Serbian Patriarch had lost his internal freedom. Can equality be drawn between the Serbian hierarchy and the Moscow hierarchy? In Australia, after arriving there from China, Metropolitan Philaret (then an archimandrite) found full spiritual communion with the Serbian Church. They served with one another, and at the request of the Serbian Patriarch, conferred awards on Serbian clergy. If one recalls Orthodox Russia in 1959, there is mention of the Serbian Patriarch’s visit to the Holy Land and his visit to our Spiritual Mission, which he honored with his presence.
Five years have passed. Yugoslavia has the same regime and the same Patriarch. The 1964 Council did not issue any new decision but merely formalized a long-standing practice. Orthodox Russia declared that, by doing so, we extended a hand to the Antichrist. At that time, Fr. Constantine [Zaitsev] was asked: at what point, in his opinion, did our attitude toward the Serbian Patriarch change so drastically? It is important to emphasize that the 1964 Council established nothing new and made the stipulation that, if anything new arose, the Synod would render judgment on it.
However, due to the internal schism among the Serbs abroad, our position became complicated. Accusations were leveled against us, claiming that we had supposedly adopted a pro-communist stance. Considering these circumstances, the Synod decided to take the position that this issue is external to us, and to avoid division, it was deemed more beneficial to leave the matter to the conscience of each Bishop. The Bishops held different views on the matter.
As for the internal conviction of the Chairman himself, he agrees with Bishop Cyril that the decision should be left to the conscience of each hierarch, as he lacks the inner conviction that the Serbian hierarchy operates in the same manner as Moscow. However, principle is one thing, and practical action, dictated by tact, is another. The Chairman leans toward the idea that no new decision should be made. The least painful course would be to step aside and refrain from serving with either side until the disputes cease.
Now the question arises about the creation of the Serbian Church Abroad. Who, if not us, would sympathize with such a cause? However, when our Church was established, its founder was a hierarch like Metropolitan Anthony, who could rely on a decree from Patriarch Tikhon. The Serbian Patriarchate treated him in a brotherly manner, but this was an external matter. It was not the Serbian Patriarchate, but the Russian hierarchs themselves who created our Church. We have no right to provide grounds for a new Church jurisdiction. We could not offer the Serbs anything more than what we provided to the Romanians and Bulgarians.
After these remarks, the Chairman announces that the discussion of the reports will take place the next day, but for now, he proposes hearing a draft resolution prepared by Archbishop Athanasius [10].
Chairman of the Hierarchal Council
Members of the Council
Secretaries of the Council
Archbishop Seraphim’s report provides evidence that his stance was more favorable toward the Serbian Patriarchate compared to that of other bishops within the Synod. In this report, he notes that Saint Philaret of New York—who fled communist China and ultimately found refuge in free Australia in 1962—concelebrated with the Serbian clergy during this period. At the time of his arrival in Australia, Saint Philaret held the rank of Archimandrite, and these concelebrations would have occurred between 1962 and 1964.
Notably, by 1965, the Serbian Patriarchate had gradually embraced the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, becoming a full member the World Council of Churches (WCC), with the WCC electing Patriarch German as its president from 1968 to 1975. This development, along with the adoption of the foreign and heretical ecclesiological principles associated with the World Council of Churches, contextualizes the striking remark by Father Constantine (Zaitsev) of Jordanville, who described such actions as extending “a hand to the Antichrist.”
On April 31, 1967, the Synod reconvened to further deliberate on the matter of the Serbian Patriarchate, allowing each member to present their perspectives. It is important to note that in 1964, under the presidency of Metropolitan Saint Anastassy, the Synod of Bishops resolved during that Sobor to maintain ecclesiastical communion with the Serbian Patriarchate [11]. This decision was made despite the fact that, as early as the mid-1940s, internal communications from the Serbian Patriarchate to the Moscow Patriarchate appeared to have characterized ROCOR as schismatic. The minutes of the April 31, 1967, synodal meeting elaborate further on this issue stating:
PROTOCOL No. 12
OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA
April 18/31, 1967
Present: all the bishops mentioned in previous protocols.
I. The minutes of Protocol No. 11 are read and approved.
II. The Chairman returns to what he said yesterday during the discussion of the reports of Bishop Savva and Archbishop Seraphim. He would like to add something to what was said, explaining why his personal conviction leans more towards the Serbian Church. When it was said that the Serbian hierarchy should be severed because of its communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, he would like to ask why this should mean a break with the Serbian Church, and not with all other Churches. Eastern Patriarchs also recognize Moscow. Moreover, it must be considered that the Serbian Patriarchate may have recognized Moscow under pressure from the communist authorities, while the Eastern Churches did so freely. Similarly, it is explained that the Serbian Church was forced into the World Council of Churches, whereas the Eastern Churches joined it long ago. There is no certainty that the Serbian Patriarchate is collaborating with the communist regime to the same extent as the Moscow Patriarchate. This issue is not of our concern, but it is imposed on us by circumstances. We must do everything to avoid the word “rupture.” However, tactically, if we simply leave the 1964 definition in place, there will be an explosion. If we are blamed now, it will only increase in the future. It seems best to adopt the position of Bishop Kirill and Archbishop Athanasius. Furthermore, when discussing whether we could offer the Serbs the same as we offered the Romanians and Bulgarians, this should be understood in theoretical terms, not as a proposal.
Archbishop Averky wishes to defend the editorial board of Orthodox Russia. It has repeatedly condemned not only the Serbian Patriarchate but also the Eastern Patriarchs for their communion with Moscow and their modernism.
Archbishop Anthony of Geneva agrees that we must distance ourselves from the Serbian issue, but would prefer this to be done without any declaratory decision. The Serbian Church is the only autocephalous Church that has not formally severed ties with us. At the Rhodes Conference and in the Vatican, Serbian delegates greeted our representatives as brothers and demonstratively communicated with us in front of Moscow representatives. One Greek who was there expressed surprise at how the Serbs supported us. Meanwhile, Moscow, of course, wants us to break off. By rejecting the Serbian Church, we would sever the last formal link between us and the other Eastern Churches. Serbian hierarchs write to us that we are the only free Church. Therefore, we must distance ourselves without bringing it to the newspapers. Our decisions should not be guided by anyone’s dissatisfaction, but by our own episcopal conscience. Archbishop Anthony, however, agrees with the resolution proposed by Archbishop Nikon, and among ourselves, we can agree to refrain from serving with Serbian bishops, not participating in their celebrations, and allowing priests to serve together in rare cases.
Archbishop Nikon reads his proposed resolution.
Bishop Nektarios notes that Bishop Savva, in his report, spoke of the alleged excommunication of the Serbian Church by us. But no one among the bishops has said or thought this. Not serving together is not excommunication. Bishop Nektarios agrees with the position of the Metropolitan, namely to remain neutral on the issue of the Serbian Church. Bishop Savva also equates the Russian Church Abroad with a Local Church, saying that for our canonical existence, we must have the blessing of the Mother Church and recognition from all Local Churches. The Russian Church Abroad has never considered itself a Local Church. On the contrary, it has always regarded itself as an inseparable part of the persecuted Russian Church.
Archbishop Vitaly agrees with the resolutions of Archbishop Nikon. The Serbian people are also preservers of piety, and if their hierarchy had completely departed from the truth, the people would have felt it and would have created their own catacomb Church. The people there are not seeking a way out of a fictitious impasse. If we decide that we have no communion, it would be equivalent to excommunication.
Archbishop Leonty hesitates to say that the Serbian Church is 100% subjugated, but the proposed resolution places the entire Serbian hierarchy under attack. Patriarch Tikhon reproached the Russian Church Abroad, and he had to distance himself from it.
Bishop Savva’s report was interesting, but what he said about the Serbian hierarchy could also be applied to the Moscow hierarchy. The Serbian hierarchy should be treated the same way as the Moscow hierarchy.
Bishop Anthony believes that what Bishop Savva wrote was written in blood. In adopting the resolution, we should not rush. Regarding the Russian Church, our assessment of church authority determines our submission or non-submission to it. When we speak about the Serbs, this issue does not exist. Fr. M. Polish wrote that on the matter of the declaration, there was a whole council conducted through various communications, and we know that the true Church was with Metropolitan Peter, Metropolitan Cyril, Archbishop Seraphim, etc. We knew that if we were not with Metropolitan Sergius, we would be with such and such hierarchs, and this was an even greater basis for our existence than Decree No. 362. There were also martyrs and confessors in the Serbian Church: Metropolitans Peter, Joseph, Nectarius, Arsenius, and Bishop Barnabas. They could criticize their Patriarchs, but they chose another path: they did not separate from their hierarchy.
If we now sever ties with the Serbian hierarchy, we would thereby sever ties with the Serbian confessors. If these confessors did not separate from the Serbian Church, we must take that into account. Practically, he agrees with the Chairman’s proposal to act tactically. The opinion of Bishop Kirill of Bulgaria is correct. We must exercise caution, and leave the question of serving to each one’s conscience. Bishop Anthony testifies that he personally knows how the Serbian hierarchs and clergy are disposed towards us and are awaiting our support. Every step against the Patriarchate will serve to support former Bishop Dionysius and the self-consecrators. We must somehow explain to the faithful that the Serbian hierarchy is not Bolsheviks. The question of serving together should be left to the conscience of each individual, but without any demonstrative nature in the resolution.
Archbishop Seraphim agrees with Bishop Anthony. The Serbian hierarchy has never issued a declaration similar to that of Metropolitan Sergius. Metropolitan Anastasius greatly valued maintaining communion with it. However, even then, some political figures were already making noise. Dark forces, such as Russian Life, the authors of the brochure, and others, were rising against maintaining communion with the Serbian Church. The Serbs approached us for the ordination of Irenaeus, but the answer could only be negative because he was separated from Dionysius, and his rank was removed. Dionysius’ situation is getting worse. We could not have created the Serbian Russian Church, because all of Dionysius’ clergy were under suspension. There is not a single Serbian who could have handled this.
The Chairman reiterates that he only briefly mentioned the possibility of creating a Serbian Russian Church.
Archbishop Seraphim places particular importance on the revival of the prayer movement. Over the past six months, it has emerged from obscurity and is developing under the guidance of its hierarchs.
Archbishop Averky reads from the Statute the definition of the essence of the Foreign Church.
Archbishop Seraphim wrongly refers to Metropolitan Anastasius. During his time, the issue of the Serbs was not raised, and everything started only with the unfortunate decision of the 1964 Council. The Tito’ist regime is more elastic than the communist regimes in other countries. Therefore, the Serbian Church manifests itself more freely than the Moscow Patriarchate, but it has no internal freedom. Patriarch Vikentije traveled to Moscow and laid a wreath on Lenin’s tomb. If he did this on his own initiative, it is terrible; if under pressure, it is a sign of unfreedom. When Patriarch Vikentije was elected, Metropolitan Joseph was removed by the authorities, and the Patriarch was elected unfreely. Patriarch German is called the “red patriarch” by the people; there is distrust towards him. If it is said that there are good bishops in Serbia, there are probably such in the Soviet Union as well. The pagan power was not the same as the communist one. The latter should be defined as satanocracy. Bishop Savva’s report is off-topic. He only showed that the situation of the Church in Serbia is easier than in the USSR.
Now the communists are becoming more elastic, so Blum has a royal portrait and serves a panikhida on July 4/17. Bulgarian Bishop Parfeniy, who came from Bulgaria, was at Tsar Simeon’s place and served a prayer service there. It is not surprising that well-disposed Serbs are drawn to us. Similar letters are also coming from Bulgaria. Due to Patriarch German’s ties with Moscow and Bulgaria, we cannot have communion with the Serbian Church. We should also bear in mind that the Serbian Church has now entered the ecumenical movement, and much is written in the spirit of ecumenism in the “Glasnik.” In the journal “Theology,” there was an article about the obsolescence of the canons, with those having moral significance being considered obsolete. We do not want to offend the Serbian Church, but since its hierarchy has some connection with communism, we do not wish to have communion with them.
Practically, Archbishop Averky agrees with Metropolitan Philaret’s proposal. We should not make noise. A moderate resolution should be adopted, as proposed by the Metropolitan and Archbishop Athanasius. It is better than Archbishop Nikon’s resolution. We only need to cancel the 1964 resolution, and the matter of serving with the Serbs should be left to the conscience of each person. We have not officially broken with Archbishop Iakovos, but we do not serve with him. It is also impractical to sever ties with all the Eastern Churches, because in all Churches, there are people who are with us in soul.
Archbishop Antony of Los Angeles talks about the strong impression that Vurdelli’s book made on him. Bishop Savva’s report had the opposite effect, i.e., it convinced Archbishop Antony that the Serbian Church authority is on the wrong path. Bishop Savva mistakenly attributes the revival of faith among the Serbs to Patriarch German. Instead of refuting the facts, he discredits the opponents. From Vurdelli’s book, we learn about the persecution of the Church and the death of martyrs. There is also Pantic’s book. The true Church is the one that has not deviated from the Orthodox teaching, even though it has sinful bishops, priests, and laity. In Russia, there are many pious bishops, priests, and laity, but since the leadership of the Church has deviated from the truth, we do not have communion with their Church. In the Serbian emigration, there are many people who were disturbed by the 1964 Council decision. The Patriarch is unpopular. The faithful are scandalized, for example, by the words in the message regarding the Skopje earthquake: “This earthquake was caused by natural reasons.” People often say: “What kind of Patriarch is this?”
We need to write as calmly as possible that we do not have communion with the Serbian hierarchy, but in such a way that nothing is offensive.
The Chairman announces that a “dissenting” has been received from Archbishop Leonty and reads it. He believes that the question has been sufficiently addressed from all sides, and a decision should be made, but it should be borne in mind that in Moscow, a declaration was made about the submission of the Church to Soviet authority, while the Serbs did not have such a declaration. Therefore, one cannot equate Moscow and Belgrade.
Archbishop Vitaly agrees with Archbishop Averky’s conclusions.
Archbishop Athanasius reports that Archbishop Theodosius wrote to him that he is against co-serving with the Serbian hierarchy. He agrees with Archbishop Vitaly. We must return to the situation that existed before the 1964 decision. Archbishop Athanasius reads the draft resolution.
Archbishop Seraphim objects that the 1964 decision was made because there were misunderstandings and inquiries about how to proceed. It fixed the already existing situation. A resolution was proposed by Archbishop John, who was the head of the commission. There is no new data to cancel it. He proposes adopting the decision suggested by the Metropolitan, leaving the matter of serving to the conscience of each person.
Bishop Antony calls for resolving the issue in the spirit of prayer and peace. Many of the bishops are already coming to the same conclusion. He agrees with the proposal of the Metropolitan and Archbishop Averky.
The Chairman reminds that in 1964, it was recognized that the resolution could be changed if circumstances changed. The situation has not changed in Serbia but has changed with us, and therefore, a new decision should be made.
Archbishop Averky, representing Archbishop Savva, reminds that he asks the Hierarchical Council to find ways to organize the Serbian Foreign Church, although he, like Bishop Nikodim, shares his (Archbishop Averky’s) point of view.
The Chairman adds to Archbishop Averky’s words. Archbishop Savva wrote to him about the creation of the Serbian Church Abroad, but no canonical path for this is visible.
Bishop Anthony, in connection with the special opinion submitted by Archbishop Leonty, reminds that “special opinions” can only be submitted after a decision has been made, not before.
A break is declared at 12:10 PM.
The meeting resumes at 12:45 PM.
After the break, Archbishop Nikon reads the draft resolution regarding the relationship with the Serbian Church.
Bishop Savva urges remembering the fear of God. The question of co-serving is to be left to the conscience of each individual.
During the discussion of the resolution, Archbishop Seraphim reports that it has just been announced that the Serbian Holy Synod in Belgrade, despite the Government’s demand, has refused to recognize the autocephaly of the Macedonian Church, arguing that it is a purely ecclesiastical matter.
After exchanging opinions on the resolution, Archbishop Nikon says that he will present the revised text in accordance with the remarks made.
III. Archbishop Nikon proposes the resolution on the project of the Eastern American Diocese Statute.
The resolution is adopted in the following form:
The Hierarchical Synod, having heard the report of the First Hierarch as the Diocesan Hierarch of the Eastern American Diocese on the draft statute of the diocese, composed based on the “Regulation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,” which was not accepted by the Diocesan Assembly of the aforementioned diocese and the matter of which was referred to the Hierarchical Synod for review, determines: the aforementioned statute is based on the sacred canons and on the “Regulation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia” and is binding for the Diocese and must be implemented in practice.
IV. Archbishop Averky reads the first half of his report “The Position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Modern World and the Internal Spiritual Unrest in Our Church.”
At 3:00 PM, the meeting is adjourned.
The meeting resumes at 8:45 PM.
Archbishop Averky reads the second part of his report “The Position of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Modern World and the Internal Unrest in Our Church.”
The meeting is adjourned at 10:30.
PRESIDENT OF THE SYNOD
MEMBERS OF THE SYNOD
SECRETARIES OF THE SYNOD [12].
As evidenced by the discussion among the bishops, various statements contradict one another, with others made without a full understanding of the internal dynamics within the respective Patriarchates. For example, Archbishop Anthony of Geneva asserts, “The Serbian Church is the only autocephalous Church that has not formally severed ties with us” [13], while in subsequent paragraphs, Archbishop Averky remarks, “It is also impractical to sever ties with all the Eastern Churches, because in all Churches, there are people who are with us in soul” [14]. Conversely, Archbishop Athanasius insists that the Church must return to the situation that existed before 1964, which entails officially breaking communion with the Serbian Church.
In the June 1st, 1967, synodal meeting, the bishops addressed this issue in a resolution adopted in the minutes, which state:
Archbishop Nikon announces the draft resolution concerning the relationship with the Serbian Church.
The Holy Synod, having thoroughly discussed the issue of the relationship with the Serbian Orthodox Church, expresses its fraternal and loving sympathy for the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is under the heavy yoke of the godless communist government, as well as for the Serbian people, with a prayerful wish for their swift liberation from this godless regime.
The Holy Synod offers a prayer of thanksgiving to Saint Sava of Serbia, the Enlightener of the Serbian people.
Wishing to offer spiritual assistance to the Orthodox Serbian brethren, the Holy Synod calls upon the episcopacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia to provide spiritual care for the Serbian Orthodox people in the diaspora who turn to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia for this purpose.
In light of the confusion caused among our faithful by the 1964 resolution of the Holy Synod regarding the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Holy Synod revokes this resolution, with the exception of the case of the former bishop Dionysius, while maintaining the previous position toward the Serbian Orthodox Church, as it stood before the adoption of this resolution. At the same time, the Holy Synod reaffirms the previous decision of the Holy Synod from July 20/August 12, 1965, instructing the diocesan bishops to refrain from interfering in the affairs of the Serbian Orthodox Church, remembering that the Serbian people, like the Russian people, are under the yoke of the godless communist regime—the bitterest enemy of Christ’s Church.
The resolution is adopted unanimously.
Archbishop Leonty retracts his dissention [15].
In Protocol No. 13 of the same session on June 1st, 1967, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad rescinded the 1964 decision made under the presidency of Metropolitan Saint Anastassy and once again suspending eucharistic communion with the Serbian Patriarchate. Protocol No. 13 states:
To Protocol No. 13 of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
TOP SECRET
May 19/June 1, 1967
In addition to the decision of this Council of Bishops regarding the relationship with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the proposal of His Eminence, the First Hierarch, Chairman of the Council of Bishops, Metropolitan Philaret, is unanimously accepted and affirmed. The proposal is that all the Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia refrain from concelebrating with the hierarchy of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Chairman of the Council of Bishops
Members of the Council
Secretaries of the Council [16].
This synodal decision was adopted by all the hierarchs of the synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. However, as I mentioned, what was said during synodal meetings and what was said in private correspondence and in actual practice were sadly two different things.
Another episode, unfolding in the 1970s within the Diocese of England and involving the Serbian Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), Saint Philaret, and Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, remains largely unknown to those outside the circle of individuals who lived through this period of ROCOR history or possess the personal correspondence exchanged between the parties involved. In a personal correspondence with Archimandrite Alexis—now a clergyman with the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece—he graciously provided me with the historical context and background for the following account.
In 1976, Archimandrite Alexis (Pobjoy) was assigned by Saint Philaret of New York to serve as the administrator of the Diocese of England following the repose of Archbishop Nikodim of Richmond. He held this position until Bishop Constantine (Essenky) succeeded him as the ruling bishop. Prior to his appointment as interim administrator of the diocese, Archimandrite Alexis spent a year at Holy Trinity Monastery and Seminary, after which he was transferred to Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston during its time under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Following his stay in Boston, the Church sent him to the Synodal Headquarters in New York to deepen his knowledge of Russian liturgical practices. Upon completing his training, he was assigned to London to fulfill his duties.
Due to his relative inexperience in ecclesiastical matters, Archimandrite Alexis frequently sought guidance from then-Father George Grabbe. One of his questions concerned whether he was permitted to serve with clergy from jurisdictions outside of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Father George explicitly instructed the newly ordained Father Alexis that he was not allowed to concelebrate with anyone outside ROCOR, an instruction which he followed without question.
In 1977, upon his return to London, Archimandrite Alexis befriended a local Serbian priest, Father Milenko Zebic (†2015). Despite their friendship, Archimandrite Alexis attested that they never concelebrated any services together. During the autumn of that same year, the clergy of ROCOR in England were scheduled to hold a memorial service for the recently reposed Archbishop Nikodim of Richmond. Unbeknownst to Archimandrite Alexis, the Church Warden—who was also a friend of Father Milenko—had invited the Serbian priest to participate in the service. Father Milenko subsequently contacted Archimandrite Alexis to inquire about the appropriate color of vestments to bring.
It was then that Archimandrite Alexis reiterated to Father Milenko the instructions he had received from Father George Grabbe and the Synod regarding concelebration with clergy outside ROCOR. He explained that such participation was not permitted, and as a result, Father Milenko did not attend the service.
Eventually, this seemingly minor event and story reached the Serbian Patriarchate and Archbishop Anthony of Geneva. The information was conveyed to Archbishop Anthony by Mother Magdalene (Grabbe) of the Lesna Convent in France, either accidentally or in passing, as she likely did not consider it a significant issue. Upon learning of the incident, Archbishop Anthony boldly wrote a seemingly harsh letter to Metropolitan Philaret of New York regarding the matter. In response, Saint Philaret wrote to Mother Magdalene, in part, stating:
I must frankly say that it was very unpleasant for me to learn from Archbishop Anthony’s letter that you informed him about Father Archimandrite Alexy’s refusal to allow Father Milenko to participate in the memorial service for Vladyka Nikodim. Of course, I do not hold this against you in any way—you were unaware of the true state of affairs. […] (essentially, only due to the language barrier—I have little knowledge of English and almost none of French, while they do not know Russian) was somehow taken by him as grounds to interfere in the affairs of the British Diocese. He has been doing this persistently and continuously, forgetting that such actions are uncanonical. […] he immediately began writing stern rebukes to the administrator of a diocese not under his jurisdiction, demanding explanations for his actions. He even sent copies of this reprimand to Fathers Yves and Mark, thereby turning them against Father Alexey and undermining his authority.
[…] He began writing again, in some kind of authoritative tone, as if addressing a disobedient vicar, demanding from me an account of my actions and threatening to raise a “commotion” across the entire world. Moreover, he wrote an apologetic letter to Father Milenko, apologizing on behalf of the entire Russian Church Abroad for the “public insult” supposedly inflicted upon him by Father Alexey, as well as on the Serbian Patriarchate. Beyond the absurdity of this letter, which insults all of us in the Russian Church Abroad, his actions were again uncanonical. A diocesan bishop can only speak on behalf of the entire Church with the knowledge and approval of its First Hierarch, yet he did not inform me of his intention at all! [17].
Saint Philaret, being rather upset with Archbishop Anthony and his three disrespectful letters, two dated October 26th and one dated October 27th, 1977, writes Archbishop Anthony acknowledging these three letters. Saint Philaret in a stern reply to Archbishop Anthony writes,
You asked Father Alexei—sarcastically and with irritation—at which Council of Bishops decisions were made on the issue of concelebration with the Serbs. However, Father Alexei did not state that concelebration with the Serbs is entirely prohibited under any circumstances. Rather, he pointed out to Father Mark (who had served with the Dionysievites!) that certain conditions must be met for concelebration with the Serbs. Father Alexei was absolutely correct. Without clarifying certain conditions, we can only serve with those Serbs who have been accepted by us and are clergy of our Church (such as Father Cedomir and others). As for those who are not part of our clergy, the following conditions must be met:
1. The Serbs in question must not be in communion with the pseudo-jurisdiction of ex-Dionisije.
2. They must not concelebrate with Soviet clergy (e.g., Father [Basil] Rodzianko).
3. They must provide evidence that they are not prohibited from serving and are not under ecclesiastical investigation or judgment.
These conditions fully stem from the sacred canons and rules of the Church, and no specific conciliar decrees are required here [18].
In this letter Saint Philaret goes on to fully support Archimandrite Alexis for carrying out his duties as the duly appointed administrator of the English Diocese, and he then chastises Archbishop Anthony for his non-canonical intrusion, saying,
Your interference in the actions of an administrator who is neither subordinate to you nor in a diocese that is now under your jurisdiction […] This does not, and never did, mean that you have grounds to impose your own order in my diocese. Forgive me, but this is how it is [19].
In his letter to Archbishop Anthony, Saint Philaret of New York outlines four distinct criteria under which a concelebration with a Serbian clergyman could be permissible. The foremost criterion is that the clergyman can be a Serbian who has left the Serbian Patriarchate and joined the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). This condition takes precedence over the others. The remaining three criteria, presented by Saint Philaret in his capacity as First Hierarch of ROCOR, effectively disqualify all members of the Serbian Patriarchate at that time.
The first of these additional criteria stipulates that the clergyman cannot belong to the jurisdiction established by Dionisije (Milivojevic), known as the Free Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of the USA and Canada, which the Synod deemed a schism from the Serbian Patriarchate.
The second criterion prohibits any association with Soviet clergy, meaning they cannot concelebrate with the Moscow Patriarchate. By 1977, the Serbian Patriarchate, under the leadership of Patriarch German—who served as president of the World Council of Churches from 1968 to 1975—had been in Eucharistic communion with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate since 1945, as demonstrated in preceding correspondence. Notably, Saint Philaret references the example of Basil Rodzianko, who later became a bishop in the schismatic Metropolia (OCA). Rodzianko, known for his ties to the Soviet KGB, was also the nephew-in-law of the prominent ROCOR priest Father Victor Potapov [20].
As for the third criterion, this basic standard requires no further explanation. Saint Philaret also reminds Archbishop Anthony that no new conciliar decrees are necessary in this matter, as the established practices already suffice. Saint Philaret does not even reference the Synodal decision of 1967, which had overturned the 1964 ruling and reinstated the original practice of non-concelebration and Eucharistic non-communion at the episcopal level.
Through this letter, Saint Philaret firmly reasserts the canonical boundaries and longstanding ecclesiastical policies of ROCOR, leaving no room for ambiguity or personal interpretation.
All of these challenges weighed heavily on Saint Philaret, to the point where he even considered resigning as the First Hierarch due to the difficulties he faced with his fellow bishops. In a letter to Father Gregory Grabbe, written in July of 1977, Saint Philaret expressed his frustration, stating:
At the next meeting of the Synod, I will not state categorically that I am leaving—that has not happened yet. But I will list the decisions, resolutions, and decrees of the Synod that remain unfulfilled, and I will categorically state that if such a “farce” continues, I will leave my post. I repeat, it cannot be allowed that the Synod is seen as some “shop” that has no serious significance or authority, and from which one can simply brush off its orders. Moreover, I have every reason to be upset with my fellow bishops who do not attach any serious importance to the fact that the Synod chairman has been without a secretary and vicar for a long time. Each bishop thinks only about his own “henhouse” his own diocese, rather than the church-wide interests [21].
As we can see from Archbishop Anthony’s conduct in 1977, this demonstrates a complete disregard for established synodal rulings, such as the prohibition against concelebration with the Serbian Patriarchate and others, which some bishops and lower clergy seemed to believe did not apply to them. Sadly, this behavior continued on well into the 1990’s and 2000’s with the often-used excuse, “my bishop blessed me to serve with the Serbians.”
Now that we have a clearer understanding of the official decisions made by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia under the presidency of Saint Philaret of New York (1965-1985), and how certain individuals within the Church felt they were above these decisions, we can fast-forward to the year 2000, when the Russian Church Outside of Russia was under the presidency of Saint Vitaly (Ustinov).
Under the presidency of Saint Vitaly, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) continued in much the same way as it had under Saint Philaret. Saint Vitaly, who served as President of the Synod from 1985 to 2001, was known for his more traditional and strict approach. He faced many of the same challenges from the Synod of Bishops that had troubled his predecessor. A number of these bishops were already compromised by secret ties to the Moscow Patriarchate and the Soviet government, including figures such as Metropolitan Mark of Germany.
In the late 1990’s, it came to Saint Vitaly’s attention that then-Bishop Mark of Germany had been secretly meeting with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate without the permission or knowledge of the First Hierarch. Before becoming a bishop of ROCOR and assuming his primary role as the architect of the false union into which the majority of ROCOR would eventually fall, Mark Arndt held an ostensibly anti-Soviet worldview.
In his book FSB’s New Trojan Horse: Americans of Russian Descent, former KGB Lieutenant Colonel Konstantin Preobrazhensky details how Mark had been arrested for importing anti-Soviet material into the USSR. Lt. Col. Preobrazhensky further recounts in his book the incident that led to Mark’s arrest by the Soviet KGB stating:
In 1979, Mark Arndt was arrested for smuggling anti-Soviet literature into the USSR. No one knows the date, nor how long they kept him in the KGB. Was it a day, or was it longer? There seems to be no record at all.
At the time Arndt, later to become Archbishop Mark, was an activist in the NTS. Some Russian emigrants now say: “What if the KGB just frightened Archbishop Mark and then let him go in peace?” As a retired lieutenant colonel of the KGB, I assure you that this could not have occurred. Smuggling anti-Soviet literature into the Soviet Union fell under Article 70 of the Criminal Code of Soviet Russia as “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” It was considered an especially dangerous crime against the State and promised a lengthy prison term.
Had the KGB released Mark, what would the agent have reported back to his superior? Surely, he could not have told his boss that he had allowed Mark to walk free. What would he have reported as the “concrete result of his work”, which is so highly valued by the KGB? A release for an Article 70 crime? That would not have been an acceptable result.
No one would have allowed Mark just to be released. Any foreigner who somehow got into the KGB's hands was considered a fattened-up delicacy. There was so much you could do with a foreigner: he could be exchanged for an imprisoned Soviet spy, or he could be used for Communist propaganda purposes. Either way, the KGB agent's career soars [22].
In 1993 Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) issued a synodal report to the First Hierarch, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov) as part of his duties as the Secretary of the Synod at that time. In this report he recounts that he has been informed that Mark of Germany without the knowledge of the First Hierarch has been in communication with the Moscow Patriarchate and went so far as to issue ROCOR clergy letters of release so that they could unite with the Soviet created Moscow Patriarchate. This report to the First Hierarch states:
Report to the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, on the Issue of Approaching the Moscow Patriarchate
In the Bulletin of the German Diocese (No. 1, 1993), a message from His Grace Archbishop Mark was published, in which it was stated:
“Our diocese does not miss the opportunity to engage in serious dialogue. Representatives of our diocese have repeatedly participated in discussions with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate. Expressing a willingness to develop dialogue further, we went to the very extreme limit permitted by our Synod of Bishops.”
Was there a resolution by our Synod or Council authorizing Archbishop Mark, or anyone else from among our hierarchs, to meet with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate and conduct dialogue on behalf of the Church Abroad, or even on behalf of an individual diocese?
Personally, I am not aware of any such resolutions.
I believe that if they did not exist, then engaging in dialogue by any of our hierarchs in a personal capacity could confuse our diaspora flock and mislead representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate, who might easily assume that our Church is indeed on a path of agreement with them.
Such dialogue could lead to a fundamental change in all of our previous policies regarding the Moscow Patriarchate, and it should not take place without a special resolution of the entire Synod of Bishops on this matter.
I presented this report for discussion at the Synod of Bishops in April, but all the sessions were so preoccupied with Church affairs in Russia that this issue was not considered.
I return to it again because, from the protocol of the Diocesan Assembly in Suzdal, it is evident that Archbishop Mark’s aspirations for unity with the Patriarchate, alas, continue. For example, a representative of the parish in Vyatka, V.A. Polno, reports on “Archbishop Mark’s intention to soon travel to Moscow for rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate”
Deacon Mikhail Makaev (Moscow) states that one of his acquaintances, who had been a member of ROCOR, with the blessing of Archbishop Mark, left for the Moscow Patriarchate, joining the parish of Priest Asmus.
Unfortunately, I have repeatedly had to hear about Archbishop Mark’s sympathies for the Moscow Patriarchate.
I must again request an answer to the previously posed question: who and when authorized Archbishop Mark or anyone else among our hierarchs to enter into dialogue and negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate?
Humbly submitted, a servant of the Synod of Bishops,
July 17/30, 1993, [23].
This reputation, which portrayed Mark of Germany—along with Bishop Hilarion of Washington—as acting in a duplicitous manner, led to increased speculation regarding Mark and also Bishop Hilarion’s loyalty to the First Hierarch and the Russian Church Abroad. This speculation grew so significantly that both Mark and Hilarion were compelled to issue a formal statement affirming their fidelity to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Furthermore, they threatened their detractors with ecclesiastical sanctions, including deposition for clergy and excommunication for laity. In their letter dated November 1995, Bishops Mark and Hilarion stated:
According to information that has reached us, in some circles of our Church, particularly in Western Europe, slanderous rumors are being spread that call into question our loyalty to our Russian Church Abroad. Therefore, we consider it our duty to emphasize that we do not deviate in any way from the general direction of the life of our Church, set forth in the canons and regulations of our hierarchy, and confirmed more than once by messages and other statements of our Bishops' Councils and Synod. We are faithful sons of the Church Abroad and wish to remain so without any flaws.
We remind those who spread slanderous fabrications that they - if they are in holy orders, according to the canons, are subject to excommunication from the clergy, and if they are from the ranks of the laity, are subject to excommunication from the Church.
MARK, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany
HILARION, Bishop of Washington
1/14 November 1995 [24].
In 1999, Saint Vitaly (Ustinov) issued a formal statement to the Synod of Bishops concerning the stance of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) regarding the Serbian Patriarchate. This statement was prompted by the concelebration of the Soviet Patriarch of Moscow, Alexy II, with the Serbian Patriarch, Pavel. Saint Vitaly’s letter reaffirmed ROCOR's longstanding policy of abstaining from Eucharistic communion and concelebration with the Serbian Patriarchate due to its affiliation with the Moscow Patriarchate, which was under Soviet control.
Notably, Saint Vitaly simultaneously acknowledged that the Synod had not issued a new conciliar statement on this issue. However, this position had previously been articulated in synodal decisions made in 1967. Given that this decision had been established 32 years prior and that Saint Vitaly was 89 years old at the time of writing, it is plausible that this reference reflected an inadvertent lapse in memory. In his address to the Synod of Bishops, Saint Vitaly stated:
We must not remain indifferent to the recent events in the Serbian Church. As everyone knows, Moscow Patriarch Alexy traveled to Yugoslavia and co-served with Serbian Patriarch Pavle. Even though there has not yet been a decision from us, whether conciliar or at the Synod level, prudence should prompt us to be very cautious in relation to the Serbian Church.
From now on, we must not invite them to participate in our services, limiting ourselves to mere silence without any, even if justified, reproaches. In other words, silently and spiritually distance ourselves from them. In unavoidable personal interactions, we should express our perplexity and disagreement to them.
Metropolitan Vitaly,
July 31, 1999 [25].
In a recently rediscovered letter from Archbishop Mark of Germany to Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev) of San Francisco, it becomes clear that Mark harbored significant concerns about the First Hierarch's decision regarding the Serbian Patriarchate. He confides in Archbishop Anthony, explaining that his education in Serbia led him to favor communion with the Serbian Church, believing it would align the Church Abroad with “Universal Orthodoxy.” This stance, however, overlooks the fact that the Serbian Patriarchate has been a long-standing member of the heretical World Council of Churches. Mark also laments his lack of communion with the Soviet-established Moscow Patriarchate, a sentiment that reinforces his already established reputation as a sympathizer of the Soviet-controlled Moscow Patriarchate. His actions cast him as a disobedient and unscrupulous bishop, one who placed his personal interests above those of the Church Abroad as a whole. In the letter, Mark writes to Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, stating:
July 25, 1999 / August 7, 1999
His Grace The Most Reverend Archbishop Anthony
471-26th Ave. U.S.A. San Francisco, CA 94121
Your Eminence, Most Reverend Vladyka,
I am addressing Your Eminence with a request for your fatherly advice. I am deeply troubled by the circular letter from Vladyka Metropolitan regarding the Serbian Church. You know that I once studied in Serbia, but it is not only this that compels me to value our communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church. Far more compelling is the conviction that it is the only Church that still gives us the opportunity to feel that we are part of the Universal Church. If we were to sever communion with the Serbian Church — at the prompting of fanatics — we would simply descend into sectarianism.
It is not enough that, contrary to conciliar decisions, we have been deprived of communion with the Russian Church and the ability to fulfill the resolutions of all our previous councils, which stipulated that we must restore communion with the Russian Church in its entirety. Now, we are in danger of losing connection with universal Orthodoxy altogether.
The Church — our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) — in which I was ordained, was different, not fanatical. Now, everything is crumbling at lightning speed. In good conscience, I cannot participate in this. Should I retire?
I do not wish to upset our First Hierarch. It is already enough that he unjustifiably considers me his enemy. But I also cannot fulfill such a directive.
I ask for your prayers and your advice.
Yours, devoted as a son,
+Archbishop Mark
MARK, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany [26].
This brief background on Metropolitan Mark of Germany and his influence on the Synod's shift in attitude brings us to the October 2000 meeting of the Synod of Bishops and a letter allegedly written by Mark himself. Although this letter was purportedly published by the Synod, it was never signed by the First Hierarch or any members of the sitting Synod. Addressed to Patriarch Pavle (†2009) of the Serbian Patriarchate, the document states:
To His Holiness, the Most Holy Patriarch Pavle, Archbishop of Peć, and Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovci.
Your Holiness,
The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, convening in New York in October 2000, sends its greetings to Your Holiness and expresses to you and the long-suffering Serbian people our deep gratitude for all the good that the Serbian Church has done for the Russian people who found themselves in exile during the cruel years of communist terror in Russia.
The Russian and Serbian peoples have always been brothers by blood and faith, and since Serbia gave us refuge, our spiritual bonds have grown even stronger. This is why we have always taken to heart and shared in the trials and tribulations faced by the Serbian people at the hands of their religious and political enemies—particularly now, in connection with the tragic events in Kosovo.
As your brothers by blood and faith, we have always cherished the Eucharistic communion between our sister Churches and desire to preserve the consolation of this communion until the end of time.
As you know, during our flight from our homeland, our Church was unable to maintain communion with the ecclesiastical administration in Russia, as it was under the vigilant control of the godless authorities. Nonetheless, we have always believed that the trials that have befallen our people are temporary and therefore pray to God for the salvation of our homeland and the revival of the Russian Church.
And now a miracle has occurred: the prayers of the host of New Martyrs of Russia have been heard. The godless power that threatened the entire world unexpectedly fell before everyone's eyes! Now, we observe with joy and hope the process of spiritual revival foretold by our saints, as well as the gradual restoration of ecclesiastical governance in Russia. This process is difficult and progresses not without resistance. Nevertheless, a bright indicator of it is the recent glorification of the New Martyrs of Russia, led by the martyred Royal Family, and the condemnation of the policy of collaboration with the godless authorities, which took place at the recent Council of the Russian Church in Moscow.
There remain other serious wounds in the leadership of the Russian Church that hinder our spiritual rapprochement. Nevertheless, we pray to God that He will heal them with the omnipotent grace of the Holy Spirit. Then the long-desired rapprochement and, God willing, spiritual union will occur between the two divided parts of the Russian Church—the one in the homeland and the one in exile.
We ask Your Holiness to assist in this matter.
We take this opportunity to thank Your Holiness and, through you, the entire Serbian Church for the recent hospitable reception of Archbishop Mark of Germany.
We ask Your Holiness not to distance us from liturgical communion with you, for we all wish, together with you, with one mouth and one heart, to eternally glorify our Savior—Christ God.
October 13/26, 2000 [27].
For the first time since 1964, a document appears to have been produced by the Synod that represents a complete departure from the thirty-three-year-old synodal decision prohibiting concelebration and communion with the Serbian Patriarchate. What is particularly interesting about this document, which emerged in October 2000, is that it is neither signed by Saint Vitaly, the First Hierarch, nor by any other member of the Synod. Moreover, it lacks even a generic closing statement that would indicate it is an official document from the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

What is curious about this document, written by Mark of Germany, is a paragraph that reads: “As your brothers by blood and faith, we have always cherished the Eucharistic communion between our sister Churches and desire to preserve the consolation of this communion until the end of time” [28].
However, as the available historical documents show, this Eucharistic communion was not, in fact, cherished by the entire Synod of Bishops over the past thirty-three years. The Sobor conducted in October 2000 was one in which the last confessor of the ROCOR, Saint Vitaly, was surrounded by bishops who had themselves been compromised and were pushing a new agenda toward World Orthodoxy and union with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate for the first time in eighty years. This shift was instigated by various actors, such as Mark of Germany, Victor Potapov, Seraphim Gan, among others.
Continuing examination of the relationship between the Russian Church Abroad and the Serbian Patriarchate, which has now spanned from 1964 to 2000, we can read two different epistles from Saint Vitaly concerning this Sobor, in which he was surrounded by the New Guard of Bishops who would be responsible for dragging the once-confessing Russian Church Abroad into communion with the Soviet-created Moscow Patriarchate, the schismatic Metropolia (OCA), and New Calendarist World Orthodoxy. One is the Pre-Conciliar Epistle in 2000 in which he wrote:
We must ourselves understand, and also declare for all to hear, that since 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius signed his lamentable "declaration," and up to the present day, our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has not had and does not have any communion in prayer with the Moscow Patriarchate, which is nothing other than the uncanonical creation of the former Soviet regime. By the same token we do not have spiritual communion with a single other autocephalous Orthodox Church which lives its spiritual and liturgical life according to the new calendar. What liturgical communion can we have, when we are still fasting, but they are celebrating the Nativity of Christ by the new calendar? According to our calendar we are praying to one saint, while the new calendarists in their way are praying to a completely different saint. In other words, any kind of communion has been destroyed, both in prayer and also even in the sacraments.
And so I, as First Hierarch, am calling upon all of you to remain forever faithful to our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and not to be confused by those appeals which we are all hearing more and more often that we should unite and concelebrate with others in the name of a loudly proclaimed "brotherly love." Where is our "brotherly love" when we are living, in that which is most important to us - our Divine Services - according to different calendars, and living a different spiritual life? Let us ponder the meaning of that most important phrase "Divine Service," which is to say, "serving God" and then we will understand that in fact we are serving God Himself in different ways [29].
This historical document reveals that, just prior to the official October Sobor in 2000, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad maintained that there was no communion with any of the official state churches.
In his final epistle on this subject, written in June 2001, Saint Vitaly offers a crucial contrast regarding the Serbian Patriarchate, directly countering the position articulated by Bishop Mark of Germany and the Sobor of the New Guard Bishops. The epistle of Saint Vitaly reads in full:
Encyclical Epistle from His Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Venerable Archpastors,
Beloved Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,
It is with the aim of preserving peace and unity among us that I address myself to you once again as the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. I believe that it is my duty to voice my opinion about the situation that has arisen since the meeting of the Council of Bishops which took place in October of 2000.
While I recognize the Council of Bishops as the supreme governing body of our Church, to which I, as the First Hierarch, am also subordinate, I wish to remind you that no Church authority can lay claim to infallibility in questions of the Truth. History is replete with examples of entire Local Churches being infected with heresies and other spiritual ailments for very long periods of time, and of this being reflected in conciliar decisions. In such cases subsequent councils had to revoke the incorrect decisions of preceding councils.
It is with great sadness that we now see the turmoil and temptation among our clergy and laity that have been caused by the Epistle and decisions of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA.
It is also with much regret that we have to admit that some of our brother bishops now have taken upon themselves to embark upon a new course for our Church and that this new course is at odds with the one which was handed down to us by our predecessors. While I cannot by my own authority correct that which was done, neither can I further remain silent when I see how the consequences of our mistakes are disturbing the spiritual life of our flock and causing unrest. I find it imperative to convene a new Council as soon as possible which will have to critically assess the main decisions and documents which were adopted and which will have the legal right to annul some of our decisions.
After much consideration we have concluded that some of the decisions of our Council were mistaken – in particular those which reflected an attempt to come closer together with the world ecumenist community in general and to engage in unwarranted contacts with the Moscow Patriarchate in particular. This was reflected in the following documents and statements of the Council:
1. The so-called "Social Doctrine" of the Moscow Patriarchate is a purely Roman Catholic concept which is foreign to the Orthodox Church and which, regardless of its possibly well-meaning intentions, holds nothing profitable for the Orthodox Christian. This Doctrine does not reflect any repentance for the past mistakes and in no manner can it cross out the treacherous Declaration of 1927.
2. The "Glorification" of the Holy New Martyrs by the Moscow Patriarchate, which was undertaken in response to pressure from believing people, was accompanied by numerous humiliating disclaimers, which completely deny the eschatological significance of the slaying of the Tsar, and cannot be a cause of joy or consolation for us. We all know that the Holy Royal Martyrs suffered precisely because of their Royal ministry. Their slaying was a part of a wider plan intentionally directed towards destroying the divinely established Orthodox State. With its compromises and lies about the Royal Martyrs and with its refusal to recognize the spiritual feats of the Tsar’s servants, the Moscow Patriarchate deliberately draws its flock away from a correct spiritual understanding of the crime that was committed. The Moscow Patriarchate, which participated in the persecution of the confessors, now, without any repentance, glorifies them! It is impossible to qualify this in any other way than as "spiritual cynicism" – something which is completely unacceptable in the Church. We must also note that this same seal of deception lies upon the "glorification" of the New Martyrs, in which the Patriarchate shamefully ignored the martyrdom of Metropolitan Joseph of Petrograd.
3. We do not share the belief of some of our brothers about the "spiritual revival" which allegedly is taking place in Russia. According to the information we are receiving, what is happening in Russia is not a "spiritual revival" but only a "gliding of the cupolas" of the churches that, according to Saint Amvrosii of Optina, it will be impermissible to attend. In this context, we support, pray for and endeavor to strengthen spiritually those of our small communities that, regardless of the corrupt laws of the post-Soviet period and of the numerous difficulties they must face, remain steadfastly in our Church.
4. We must unequivocally admit that the establishment of a Commission "on unity" with the Moscow Patriarchate was a mistake on the part of the Council of Bishops. There can be no such Commission as there is no object for its work.
5. The Serbian Patriarchate received us as homeless exiles in 1920 while preserving our canonical status as the Russian Church in accordance with the 39th Apostolic Canon. For this we will always remain deeply thankful and in debt to her. But following the Second World War, the Church that continued to exist under the Communist rule of Tito could no longer be considered to be the same Church as the Church of his Holiness Patriarch Varnava that had offered sanctuary to the Russian exiles in the past. Her submission to the worldly rulers and her participation in the interfaith ecumenical movement do not allow us to ask for a eucharistic union with the Serbian Patriarchate headed by Patriarch Pavle.
It saddens us to recognize that in our times, when the processes of apostasy have reached new destructive heights, the Council’s Epistle did not call upon the faithful to triple their vigilance towards this apostasy. We are also pained to admit that recent new appointments to the sees of the Diocese of Western Europe and in Russia have resulted in so much distress and troubles.
Our pastors and our pious flock have always stood side by side with their bishops. This was the strength of the Russian Orthodox Church. Pastors are not simply called upon to implement of the orders of the higher Church authorities without personal responsibility, but they are in the first ranks of the servants of Christ and His children. They are not bureaucrats who can be directed only by orders and who can be held in submission with threats. They are servants of our Lord, as we all are. They are our life-force and we must protect them as the apple of our eye and never let them fall into despair and depart into schisms, lest we share with them the terrible responsibility for such a thing.
I, as the fourth primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, am following unswervingly in the footsteps of their Beatitudes Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy and of my most blessed predecessor, Metropolitan Philaret, whose relics were found to be incorrupt in 1998, which is a sign from above of the truthfulness of the path he followed all his life. I therefore appeal to you all to remain patient and to avoid any hasty conclusions or actions. We are living in difficult times. And the Enemy of our salvation is always ready to catch us in his nets. I therefore appeal once again to you "Fear not little flock (Luke 12:32) the Lord is with us! And if the Lord is with us, who shall be against us? Do not forget that the most terrible thing for us is to depart from the Truth – which is to say, from Christ Himself."
9/22 June 2001
Saint Kirill, Bishop of Antioch
†Metropolitan Vitaly
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
(I ask all priests to read this Epistle from the ambon. It would also be good to make copies to distribute among the parishioners) [30].
Комментарии