Rocor and apostasy in America

Orthodoxy in the Contemporary World

A CLARIFICATION
By the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Concerning the Question of an Autocephalous American Orthodox Church1
June 6 (19), 1969

___
1. Excerpts from the full text in Orthodox Russia, 1969, no. 12, pp. 5-6. It was issued before the announcement of the Metropolia's "autocephaly" in response to the more general discussion of the issue in the Church press.


IN ORTHODOX terminology the name Autocephalous Church is given to a Church that unites all Orthodox dioceses on a given territory and is headed by a Chief Hierarch chosen by its own episcopate, which is independent of any other Church. Historically autocephaly has been acknowledged for separate Churches satisfying these demands without haste, after their attainment of a certain maturity that leaves no doubts as to their ability firmly to maintain Orthodoxy and independently govern themselves and develop. This acknowledgment should come first from the Mother Church which established the new Local Church and reared it...

The Orthodox population of North America, although it has increased in the past decades, nonetheless comprises a minority and is in large measure scattered. To a significant degere this hinders the formation of a special "American piety" that would unite it in the same way that in another time there was formed a Greek, Russian, Serbian, or Bulgarian piety that sanctified the life of the separate Orthodox peoples. On the contrary, the Americanization of parishes does not usually limit itself to the lawful use of the English language in services and sermons, but goes on to become an influence on the order of Church life by the surrounding un-Orthodox environment. Under such conditions the influence of the Mother Churches with established traditions is a valuable factor for the preservation of Orthodoxy...

As for the Russian dioceses, in general no kind of final decision regarding them can canonically take place until the restoration of normal Church order in Russia. No part of the Russian Church in America can be acknowledged a Local, i.e., Autocephalous Church without the agreement of the Mother Church, and the latter cannot now express itself. The Moscow Patriarchate, as being under the surveillance and direction of the atheist power, cannot be acknowledged as a canonical representative of the Russian Church. However, out of respect for the suffering of this Church we should not undertake such decisions, which by the canons unconditionally demand her blessing...

THE IMPENDING "AUTOCEPHALY" OF THE RUSSIAN METROPOLIA IN AMERICA

ON THE EVE of the canonization of Father Herman of Alaska, a dark cloud has come over Orthodoxy in America, which was already troubled enough before this. For the third time since the Russian Revolution (first under Metropolitan Platon in the 1920's, then after the infamous Cleveland pseudo-Sobor of 1946) the Russian Metropolia in America has been negotiating for – and now finally is about to receive – the "blessing" of the Patriarchate of Moscow for an independent existence. The Metropolia, to quote Metropolitan Ireney's Christmas Epistle of 1969, "becomes, acknowledged by other Orthodox Churches, the Local Church of America, the Father's house and firm refuge for all who confess Orthodoxy and consider the American continent as their earthly fatherland... a single Church for all Orthodox in this land."

Full details and explanations are presumably soon to be forthcoming, but the first announcement of this event leaves an impression so bizarre and incongruous with the real nature of the situation of Orthodoxy and of the Metropolia in America as to require a few comments and raise some burning questions.

The unfitness of the Metropolia to be an autocephalous Church is well set forth in two paragraphs of the recent Decree of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Outside of Russia (Dec. 18-31, 1969):

"The history of the Church knows no precedent of autocephaly being proclaimed on a missionary territory on which at the same time there have continued to exist already for many years dioceses of various autocephalous Churches. The question of the possibility of the formation of an autocephalous American Church is still far from having become ripe for serious discussion also because a genuine pious Christian life exists in America as yet only to the extent that the piety and customs derived from each Church have been preserved. When this heritage is gone, it will be replaced not by a particular local Orthodox piety, but rather by customs adapted from the local non-Orthodox communities, as in many cases is already to be noticed in connection with the order of church services, with fasts, feasts, and the architectural style of churches.

"The only example of sanctity glorified on American soil is Father Herman of Alaska, but he was raised not in American, but in ancient Russian piety. The incomparably more powerful Church of Russia, which had already been adorned by many examples of sanctity, which was one in jurisdiction and culture on all its territory, showed for the course of almost five hundred years an example of long and humble waiting with the declaration of its autocephaly."

When even the "Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, despite its earnest desire for it, cannot agree on any path to establish an "American Orthodox Church," and the last "Pan-Orthodox" conference in Geneva refused even to discuss the issue, the Russian Metropolia suddenly finds itself proclaimed the autocephalous American Church. Strange, indeed. A Church possessing a minority of the nominally Orthodox in America, with a chief hierarch who does not speak English, with a sizable minority of the faithful purely Russian, and most of the rest of Russian descent and possessing an unmistakable 'immigrant" mentality; a Church whose spiritual poverty is revealed in the fact that it, which claims to be the oldest American "jurisdiction," has no monastery worthy of the name, whose modernizing "theology" is the work of foreigners and is dominated by two recent immigrants (Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff); a Church whose ecclesiastical immaturity is revealed in its decision to allow each parish to choose its own calendar(!), thus introducing anarchy into its own midst and demonstrating that it places the influence of the local environment above canonical considerations and even above normal church order; etc., etc. – these are the characteristics of an erratic and unmistakably foreign missionary outpost that has suffered from a lack of adequate direction from a wellordered Mother Church. To call it a Local Orthodox Church is nothing short of ridiculous and can find acceptance only among the ecclesiastically illiterate, or worse, the self-deceived.

Such an incredible announcement must have some other explanation behind the scenes. However, according to the Metropolia's Protopresbyter Joseph Pishtey, who made the first announcement of the impending event in an article in the New York Russian newspaper Novoye Russkoye Slovo (Dec. 6, 1969), "everything that we do, we do ecclesiastically, openly... We are not concluding any kind of secret agreement, but openly and straightforwardly speak..." He then proceeds to outline a strange demonstration of the Metropolia's "straightforwardness" – six years of secret negotiations. These include meetings in 1963 between Metropolitan Leonty and a Moscow delegation, early this year between a Metropolia delegation consisting of one bishop and four priests and a Moscow delegation, first in New York, then in Geneva, again in Tokyo (none of the participants of these being named); we are informed that the Great Council of Metropolia bishops met to send this delegation, and again to approve its negotiations – and all the while, as Protopresbyter George Grabbe points out in his comments on the situation (Orthodox Russia, 1969, no. 23, pp. 6-8), "neither in the newspapers nor in the publications of the Metropolia itself was a single word ever said about this."

It is of course no wonder that negotiations are kept secret when they are made with the puppet-hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Moscow, led by Metropolitan Nikodim, who are pointed out not only by those outside the USSR who know the church situation there, but by persecuted believers within the USSR as well, as Soviet agents or, as one of the appeals from Pochaev believers put it, "our red-robed Metropolitans" and "wolves in sheeps' clothing."1 It is no wonder that negotiations are kept secret when they are undertaken precisely at the time (since 1960) when the persecution of Christians in the USSR (as Soviet sources themselves reveal) has been doubled and redoubled, when the voice of the crushed Orthodox population has been made known in desperate Open Letters sent to the West at the risk of the senders' lives, and when the very hierarchs with whom the Metropolia negotiates are cruelly denying that any persecution exists. The hopes of these believers for help and understanding from outside the Iron Curtain are surely betrayed when they see even free Russian hierarchs come to an agreement with their "wolves." It is no wonder that negotiations are kept secret when people might ask – in view of the fact that previous negotiations always broke down because the Moscow Patriarchate demanded impossible conditions such as a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet Government – what price is the Patriarchate of Moscow demanding for this "favor"? It is no wonder that, even when the official terms of the agreement are made public, one will have good reason to suspect the existence of secret agreements and clauses that must remain unpublished for the same reason the whole course of negotiations was kept secret.

___
1. See The Orthodox Word, 1965, no. 3, p. 114.


It has already been revealed that the Metropolia is giving the Japanese Church over to the jurisdiction of Moscow – which will be extremely useful for the expansion of Soviet political interests and prestige in the Far East. Already in 1946 Metropolitan Theophilus, then still under the Synod of Bishops Outside of Russia, could write (in a letter to Metropolitan Anastassy): "How terribly sad for the Japanese Church, that the Soviet Church might swallow it up, towards which it is striving." It is quite possible that the young and inexperienced Japanese Church may accept this new state of affairs unsuspectingly; but the guilt of the Metropolia will then be all the greater for having handed over her sheep to the wolves, for she is a Russian institution and should well know the essence of the Moscow Church authority. Anyone who doubts that the Patriarchate of Moscow is used by the Soviet Government for its own ends, that the Soviet Government is fully aware of the negotiations with the Metropolia and has given its approval for the Metropolia's "autocephaly," that the Soviet Government is interested in Orthodoxy for any other reasons than to further its own interests and to use the Orthodox Church to discredit and destroy itself from within – is apparently not familiar with the plentiful documents that exist on this subject in English and other languages,1 including the open statements of the Soviet Government itself.

___
1. Such documents appear regularly in English, among other places, in the semi-monthly Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, 475 Riverside Dr., New York City, 10027.


The whole affair is quite obviously a Soviet "trap," into which the Metropolia has fallen for quite understandable reasons. The Metropolia has always been aware of the uncanonicity of her ecclesiastical position and has sought desperately for the recognition of the mighty and the "official." If Fr. Pishtey states in his article that the Metropolia strives only "to stand on a firm and indisputable canonical foundation," to achieve "peace and canonical clarity," it surely means that the Metropolia until now has been "canonically unclear" and has stood on a "disputable canonical foundation"! Being insecure in the very foundation of her existence, the Metropolia has been unable to act on the basis of principle. If one adds to this the sense of inferiority inspired by the Metropolia's "immigrant mentality," which leads her to innumerable compromises with the prevailing American secular-Protestant world-view in order to obliterate her own sense of foreignness and "backwardness," one has a situation ripe for the clever diplomats of Moscow to exploit. Can anyone seriously believe that the Metropolia, whose whole spiritual orientation is summed up in the word "compromise," is now about to embark upon a glorious mission of enlightening the American land with the pure teachings and practices of unadulterated, uncompromising Orthodoxy? Nay, the future of the Metropolia was clearly foreseen ten years ago in an Epistle of the Sobor of Russian Bishops Abroad (Oct. 31-Nov. 13, 1959): Her "innovations... and liturgical departures... will eventually draw her into closer affiliation with and gradually lead to her being assimilated by the Protestant world." She will become, in the words of the late Archbishop Vitaly of Jordanville, a kind of "Eastern-rite Anglicanism "

When all is said and done, are the dubious "advantages" the Metropolia derives from her negotiations able to offset their terrible consequences? Let one only reflect: the Metropolia, now possessing "canonical clarity," becomes thereby the patron of the persecution of Christians in the USSR – for she acknowledges the authority of the hierarchs who support that persecution, and she will hardly dare to deny the official statements of those from whom she received her "canonicity." (One may recall how the Soviet Government effectively silenced the World Council of Churches in 1961 by sending representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate to join it and counteract any voices of protest against its persecution of religion.) The Metropolia hierarchs will not be required to give their declaration of loyalty to the Soviet Government, but they will now be one with a hierarchy that received its own recognition from the Soviet Government by confessing (with Metropolitan Sergy in 1927) that the joys and successes of the Soviet Union were their joys and successes, and its failures their failures – a confession that finds expression today in the mindless repetition by leading Moscow hierarchs of even the most absurd Soviet propaganda. And upon this Government, which is the ultimate source of the Metropolia's "autocephaly," rests the anathema proclaimed in 1918 by the very Patriarch T;khon upon whom the Metropolia now tries to lean as having once favored an eventually autocephalous American Orthodox Church.

Thus, finally, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, do the spiritual alternatives of these times become ever more distinct. The history of the Metropolia itself indicates in which direction she should turn if she truly prefers Orthodoxy and genuine canonicity above the world's recognition. The only time, since her first schism in 1927, when she knew peace and order and "canonical clarity" was when (1936-46) she was an obedient daughter of the entire Russian Church Outside of Russia; the cause of the disorders within Russian Orthodoxy in America—apart from the work of Soviet agents – has always been first of all the Metropolia herself, with her constant inner uncertainties and changes of mind and allegiance.

It would seem, however, that the period of uncertainty for the Metropolia has ended. She has apparently made her decision, ard it is not on the side of peace and order, for now many of her own flock are disturbed and some are leaving her jurisdiction; nor is it in the interests of American Orthodoxy, which will grow only on the basis of sound and principled Orthodoxy, not shady politics and the world's "recognition"; nor does it help Orthodox unity, for it is a slap in the face of the Russian Church Abroad, whose authority she has twice recognized and twice renounced, and the reaction of the other national jurisdictions in America (in particular the much larger Greek Archdiocese) remains to be seen; nor does its pretense to achieving "canonicity" have any meaning in the Church when this "canonicity" is conferred by the agents of the most determined enemies of the Church.

If this shameful act is indeed consummated, the air will doubtless be filled with the myriad arguments of its apologists; but not one of them will stand up before the conscience of the Church of Christ. Truly, as the recent Epistle of the Synod of Bishops Abroad has expressed it, "on such an agreement the Grace of God cannot repose."

———The recent decrees and statements of the Russian Church Outside of Russia on the question of the Metropolia's "autocephaly" will appear in English in the January-February issue of Orthodox Life, which may be ordered from Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, 13361.

TWO MORE GREEK PRIESTS LEAVE GREEK ARCHDIOCESE FOR RUSSIAN SYNOD

IT IS THROUGH no intention of her own that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has become, in these critical times for world Orthodoxy, a veritable beacon and haven for Orthodox clergy and faithful of all nationalities who strive to learn and preach the truths of Orthodox Christianity in harmony with a fully Orthodox hierarchy. This situation has come about simply through the nature of events. Whole Orthodox Churches are being led by a hundred forms of worldly influence into forgetfulness of Orthodoxy and into outright apostasy; and Orthodox bishops in every Church and jurisdiction are either taking the lead in this suicidal movement or maintaining what has by now surely become a traitorous silence. Scattered voices of monks, clergy, and laymen in many lands are heard pleading for faithfulness to genuine Orthodoxy; but among the hierarchs it is only the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad that speak out in the same spirit, and thus by default of the other bishops have become the champions of Orthodoxy today.

The situation in particular of American Orthodoxy has recently begun to lead increasing numbers of believers to the conclusion that the other jurisdictions are becoming a lost cause: already well on the way to outright apostasy, they show no signs of a return to genuine Orthodoxy. The last hope of American Orthodoxy has become the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Among Orthodox of Greek background, Abbot Panteleimon and the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston became the first to find refuge in the Russian Church Outside of Russia. Then, in January, 1968, Father Neketas Palassis of Seattle became the first parish priest to leave the Greek Archdiocese over the question of Orthodoxy and enter the Russian Synod; he was followed by several priests and a deacon from the two Syrian jurisdictions and the Russian Metropolia, but although many Greek priests sympathized with Father Neketas none of them has followed him until very recently. In August of this year Father Jeremiah Monios, the young pastor of the Dormition Greek Orthodox Church in Flint, Michigan, became the first to follow Fr. Neketas, giving up his parish to take a job as a draftsman while serving as a part-time assistant to the Russian parish. In a letter to The Logos he indicated that he acted as he did because "Iakovos is no longer an Orthodox archbishop" and "those who follow a heretic bishop are his co-workers and guilty of the same heresy." In November he was followed in turn by another young Greek priest, Father Peter Carras of the St. Demetrios Greek Church in Toronto.

Concerning these two priests Fr. Eusebius Stephanou, editor of The Logos, himself a none too friendly critic of Archbishop Iakovos who nonetheless remains within the Greek Archdiocese, editorialized thus in his December issue: "It is sad to see the Greek Orthodox Church in America deprived of her most Christ-fearing priests. Others in the clergy may sit back in calculated silence and indifference over the loss of Father Carras to the Archdiocese. But we express grave concern over the decision of a priest whose purity of spirit, priestly dedication, and conscientiousness are well-known in the church.... What is going on? Are we all headed for the Russian Church Outside Russia in order to save our Orthodoxy?"

Fr. Eusebius' own policy remains to try to change the Greek Archdiocese from within; he indicates in the same editorial that if Archbishop Iakovos is a heretic he should be tried and deposed – by whom? By his model and co-worker in the destruction of Orthodoxy, Patriarch Athenagoras? By the intimidated bishops under them? By a Communist-ecumenist-modernist dominated "Pan Orthodox" assembly, which by its very composition (i.e., by command of the Moscow Patriarchate) cannot so much as invite the bishops of the most resolutely Orthodox Church in the world to attend? The best Greek priests, as Fr. Eusebius admits, are simply losing all hope that the Greek Archdiocese can remain, or in fact any longer is, Orthodox.

It is significant, too, that the same Fr. Eusebius who, in an early issue of The Logos, gave way to a hasty and uninformed diatribe against "bishops in exile," has since then devoted considerable space to sympathetic statements about the Russian Church Outside of Russia. This would seem to be a sign that the cause today of Orthodox "traditionalism," "awakening," or whatever name one may give to the battle to preserve or regain Orthodoxy, if it has any spark of genuineness in it, must find itself drawn the more surely toward the Russian Church Abroad, the more realistically it comes to look at the rest of contemporary Orthodoxy.

It yet remains to be seen how prophetic will be the headline of Fr. Eusebius' editorial: "Are we all headed for the Russian Synod?" Fr. Eusebius acknowledges that he himself is not ready to make this move"at least for the present time"; but for how much longer, to the lover of Orthodoxy, will there even seem to be a plausible alternative to this path?

The following text, printed here in full, lays bare better than any comments about it could do, the crisis of conscience that is presently afflicting the best members of the Greek Archdiocese.

FAREWELL SERMON OF REV. PETER CARRAS
(Priest of St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Toronto)
NOVEMBER 9, 1969

DEARLY BELOVED in Christ,

Today we have come to celebrate the blessed memory of our father among the Saints, Nectarios, the Wonderworker, to venerate his relic and to beseech him to intercede on our behalf that our Lord keep us in His Kingdom.

We here in the parish of St. Demetrios have seen the Grace which our Lord has bestowed on St. Nectarios and we have come to love him. There was a time when the great Wonderworker was unknown in Toronto. Today our church is filled by those who have come to express their love and respect for this newly revealed luminary. It would, however, be a great mistake to honor St. Nectarios as a wonderworker and to forget the grace which he had as a hierarch of our Church.

St. Nectarios was a shepherd of our Lord's flock and he struggled against the enemies of the Church. His whole life was devoted to preaching the word of God so that the children of God would not be led astray and abandon the way of salvation, the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" of which we are members. He taught that only within the Church can we find our Lord, or as he himself says: "In the Church, the Holy Spirit dwells and abundantly bestows the fruit of Its All-Holy Grace. In the Church, Divine love for God, perfect love and devotion to Him and the unceasing desire for eternal union with God are developed."

Satan, however, does not want to see perfect love and devotion to our Lord and for that reason unceasingly strives to separate us from the Church. The Holy Church of our Lord has been continuously assailed by her enemies in an attempt to drive the children of God away from their heavenly Father. Our Lord, however, has assured us that "the gates of hell" shall not prevail against the Church. The Church will never be vanquished. Of this we are sure. What is not certain, however, is whether we and those who follow after us will remain within the holy ark of salvation. To a large extent the question of whether or not we will be able to withstand those who would separate us from our Lord Jesus Christ, depends on whether or not we are able to recognize the enemy.

This was the task which St. Nectarios assumed. This is the task that we too must undertake if we are to remain faithful to our Lord. A recent maneuver which Satan has used extensively is to convince people that as long as a person believes in a Supreme Power it does not matter whether he belongs to the Church of our Lord or whether he is a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew or a Hindu. In this way faithful Christians are led to believe that the Grace which they have found in the Kingdom of God exists elsewhere also. Often those who through their own personal disbelief have lost the Grace of God, instead of repenting and striving to obtain the blessing of God, separate themselves from the faith of their fathers and adopt strange doctrines. These people have lost the Grace of God and cannot distinguish between black and white, between the realm of Satan and the Kingdom of God.

This is the position in which many Orthodox Christians find themselves. To make matters worse these people are exposed to so-called Orthodox bishops, priests and theologians who confirm their belief that there is no difference between Satan's realm and the Kingdom of God. All this is done in the name of the Ecumenical Movement.

Lately we have been swamped with various educational materials from the offices of Archbishop Iakovos which attempt to convince us that when we say that we believe "in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" we do not mean the Orthodox Church but all the so-called Christian churches which exist throughout the world. This new doctrine is to be found in statements of the Archbishop, in Sunday School material and in the Orthodox Observer, the official publication of the Archdiocese.

The Archdiocese not only teaches that the Orthodox Church is not the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" of our Lord but has set out to show that no differences exist by constantly taking part in "ecumenical worship services." Protests have come from all the Orthodox world but the Greek Archdiocese heeds no one. The wolf has put on the fleece of a sheep and is leading the lambs away from the flock. The shepherd, however, instead of revealing the identity and the danger of the wolf, embraces him and calls him "brother."

At the time of my ordination I knew what policy the Archdiocese was following but I believed that in some way I could combat this attempt to separate us from the Grace of God. I have been your priest for over three years. Together we have struggled to build this church. Together we have endeavored to educate ourselves and our children in the Orthodox faith. Together we have grown in Christ. It is with great sadness that I am forced to tell you that I have taken a step which for many of you will mean that we will be separated. I have come to love you all and I pray that you also love me. It is because I love you all that I must tell you that the man whom we have called our Archbishop is not a shepherd of the Church. He has embarked on a program which will alienate many people from the Church. The doctrine that the Orthodox Church is not the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" of our Lord, is heresy. Those who follow this doctrine have abandoned the faith of our fathers and can no longer be considered Orthodox.

I thank our Lord Who has revealed to me the existence of true shepherds, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. They have granted me permission to form a parish under the protection of St. Nectarios for the benefit of those Christians in Toronto who do not wish to be part of this attack on the Orthodox Church. I assure you that I will never stop praying that our Lord will guide and protect you and your children.

May God ever enlighten us. Amen.