Important decrees of the rocor sobor in 1971

Orthodoxy in the Contemporary World

IMPORTANT DECREES OF THE SOBOR OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA

THE TRIENNIAL SOBOR (Council) of the entire Russian Church Outside of Russia, which met in Montreal in September, 1971, with fourteen bishops in attendance, issued a number of important decrees of general interest. Some of the decrees, concerning relations with the other Russian "jurisdictions," serve to make the position of the Russian Church Abroad quite clear and distinct in a time of much ecclesiastical confusion: the final breaking of all communion with the American Metropolia over its "autocephaly"; the declaration of the invalidity of the election of "Patriarch" Pimen as well as of all his decrees; and the condemnation of Constantinople's new infringement of the rightful jurisdiction of the Russian Church by once more taking under her wing (with obviously political motives born of the "autocephaly" scandal, since just six years ago she had compelled this group to leave her jurisdiction under pressure from Moscow) the remnant of the "Eulogian" schism in Western Europe.

Other decrees of the Sobor are of great importance for all of contemporary Orthodoxy. It can be said with no exaggeration that no other body of Orthodox bishops in the world today with the sole exception of the bishops of the persecuted True Orthodox Christians of Greece would dare to issue such decrees that fly in the face of contemporary intellectual fashion and ecclesiastical politics: the acknowledgement of ecumenism as "a heresy against the dogma of the Church"; the re-establishment of the strict practice of baptizing all Catholics and Protestants who come to Orthodoxy; the censuring of the establishment of actual communion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Latin church as "an act not only anticanonical but heretical"; and the declaration of spiritual unity with the proscribed True Orthodox (Catacomb) Church of Russia (see page 267). Beyond this the bishops gave a spiritual consolation to their flocks by authorizing the beginning of preparations for the canonization of Blessed Xenia and the New Martyrs of Russia.

The texts of these decrees are presented below, with some omissions which are indicated by dots in the text; the headings have been added by the translators.

1. Concerning the Election of a Patriarch in Moscow (Sept. 1/14)

...In 1917 the All-Russian Sobor adopted a decree concerning the restoration of the Patriarchate in Russia and elected to the Patriarchal Throne His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon.... The system of elections [at this Sobor], assuring complete freedom and having been confirmed by the All-Russian Sobor, was never abolished by a free Sobor of equal authority. Therefore, elections of Patriarchs performed in another manner which is not free, do not express the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church and are not lawful. Not only the election of the present Pimen, calling himself Patriarch, but as well the elections of his two predecessors, must be considered unlawful... At all three elections of Patriarchs no one attempted or had the opportunity to nominate any candidate besides the one indicated beforehand by representatives of the civil authority.

The violation of the lawful succession of higher Church Authority in the Russian Church began in 1927, when the Substitute of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhegorod, violated the instructions of the Metropolitan of Krutitsk [Peter], whom he was replacing, and signed an agreement with the atheistic civil regime, to which neither Metropolitan Peter nor other elder hierarchs had agreed. The Soviet regime began to imprison all the hierarchs who did not agree with Metropolitan Sergius, thus clearing the way for him to become head of the Russian Church. He, on his part, without taking account of the elder hierarchs, formed a Synod at his own personal designation and, while Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsk, to whom by his position the governance of the Moscow diocese belonged, was still alive, he unlawfully adopted the title of Metropolitan of Moscow with the right to wear two Panagias....

All the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, according to which "if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them episcopal authority in the Church, let him be deposed and excommunicated together with all those in communion with him"....

Taking into consideration all the above-mentioned reasons, the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as representing the free part of the Russian Church, decrees: The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the gathering of June 2 of this year in Moscow, calling itself an All-Russian Church Sobor, by authority of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles, the 3rd Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the other reasons cited in the present decree, is acknowledged as unlawful and invalid, and all his acts and decrees as having no authority whatever.

2. Concerning the Possible Sanctions of the Moscow Patriarchate

The Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia became acquainted on September 1/14, 1971, with the decree of the so-called All-Russian Church Sobor, according to which the Moscow Patriarchate intends to "make effective in the near future the necessary canonical sanctions" with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

This decree, as likewise a series of other decrees of the same Sobor, was clearly made to please the atheistic Soviet regime. Not for nothing does it stand in line with a decree approving the political statements of the late Patriarch Alexis and a testimony approving the politics of the USSR.

Having considered this decree, the Sobor of Bishops decrees: In order for any decree to have force and significance, it is required that the person concerning whom it is brought be in the canonical jurisdiction of the person or institution that is bringing judgment against him. The decree of the persons assembled in the Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, calling themselves an All-Russian Sobor, was brought against a hierarchy which has no relation at all to them. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, founded fifty years ago and having its canonical foundation in the Decree No. 362 of November 7/20, 1920, of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod meeting jointly with the Higher Church Council, has never been in the jurisdiction of the present Moscow Patriarchate. The enslaved state of the latter under the atheistic regime and the unlawful elections of the last three Patriarchs indicate that the conditions indicated in the above-mentioned Decree for the autonomous existence of the Russian Church Outside of Russia continue to exist even now.

The very attacks against the Western world which are contained in the "Appeal of the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Whole World" testify to the fact that the Russian Church Outside of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate find themselves in parts of the world which are deeply divided politically, and sometimes no less so than in countries between which there is a military front. Therefore, even in case the elections of the Patriarchs did not evoke doubts as to their lawfulness, it would be necessary to preserve abroad the present status of the free part of the Russian Church, on the basis of the Decree of November 7/20, 1920.

During the past fifty years the entire composition of the hierarchy of the Church Outside of Russia has changed, and the present ruling bishops never had any obligations whatever with regard to the present Moscow Patriarchate and they could not have any, inasmuch as they acknowledge her as canonically unlawful and as having broken faith with the truth of Christ from the time that Metropolitan Sergius in 1927 put as her foundation the simultaneous serving of Christ and Belial.

Therefore, if the Moscow Patriarchate shall attempt to apply any kind of canonical sanctions to the hierarchy of the free part of the Russian Church, this will be an act unlawful and invalid.

3. On the Heresy of Ecumenism (Sept. 316)

At the report of Protopresbyter George Grabbe, the Sobor adopted the following resolution: Having heard the detailed report of Protopresbyter George Grabbe concerning ecumenism and acknowledging ecumenism to be a heresy against the dogma of the Church, the Sobor of Bishops requests the Chairman of the Sobor [Metropolitan Philaret] to come out with a new Sorrowful Epistle, warning the Orthodox world against this heresy.

4. On Relations with the American Metropolia (Sept. 3/16)

...The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate, which has lacked authentic canonical succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon from the time when Metropolitan Sergius, who subsequently called himself Patriarch, violated his obligation with respect to the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Peter and entered a path which was even then condemned by the elder hierarchs of the Russian Church. Ever more submitting to the commands of the atheistic, anti-Christian regime, the Moscow Patriarchate has ceased to express the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church. Therefore, as the Synod of Bishops has correctly declared, no act of hers, including also the giving of autocephaly to the North American Metropolia, has lawful authority. Incidentally, apart from this, this act, touching on the rights of many Churches, has already evoked the decisive protests of a number of Orthodox Churches, which have even broken off communion with the American Metropolia.1

___
1 Decisive protests have been officially made by the four Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch (the last-named being the least sharp in tone), and by the Churches of Greece and Serbia. In the spring of 1971 the Greek Archdiocese in New York broke off communion with the Metropolia, and relations between these two bodies remain indeterminate up to now. Texts of the chief protests are printed in The Orthodox Observer Quarterly, Oct.-Dec., 1971, where the arguments, however, do not even touch on the main issue at stake: the canonical invalidity of the decrees of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Viewing this unlawful act with sorrow and acknowledging it to be invalid, the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which up to now had not completely given up hope for the restoration of ecclesiastical unity in America, sees in the declaration of American autocephaly a step that leads the American Metropolia even farther away from the ecclesiastical unity of the Russian Church. Seeing in this a great sin against the enslaved and suffering Russian Church, the Sobor of Bishops resolves: In future, both for clergy and laymen, to have no communion in prayer or Divine services with the hierarchy and clergy of the American Metropolia.

5. On the Constantinopolitan Jurisdiction of Russian Parishes in Western Europe (Sept. 7/20)

In connection with the inclusion of Russian parishes in Western Europe into the Exarchate of the Patriarch of Constantinople, we have resolved: The Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having been informed of the new decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in which the Russian parishes in Western Europe headed by Archbishop George are received into the Greek Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in France, protests against this act as violating the rights of the Russian Church and as being an uncanonical interference in her affairs.

Already in 1930 the head of the free part of the Russian Church, His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony, and the Sobor of Bishops of this Church declared a protest against a similar act. Therefore, the Sobor of Bishops affirms that the inclusion of a part of the Russian parishes in Western Europe into the Exarchate of the Patriarch of Constantinople is an act violating the rights of the Russian Church, as tearing away from her a significant part of her flock and her property.

6. On the Canonization of the New-Martyrs of Russia (Sept. 10/23)

At the request of 256 people, including two bishops, concerning the canonization of the New-Martyrs of Russia, headed by the Royal Family.... the Sobor of Bishops, after a detailed consideration of this question, decrees: The Sobor of Bishops bows with reverence before the sacred exploit of the Russian New-Martyrs and sympathizes with their glorification. On the occasion of the just-completed 50th year of the Russian Church Outside of Russia and the more than 53 years of persecution against the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod of Bishops is entrusted with undertaking the collection of material in regard to the question of glorifying the assembly of New-Martyrs who suffered from the fighters against God.

7. Concerning the Canonization of Blessed Xenia (Sept. 11/24)

...We have resolved: to entrust to the Synod of Bishops the collection of material on the question of the canonization of Blessed Xenia.

8. Concerning the Baptism of Heretics (Sept. 15/28)

On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy, the following decree was adopted: The Holy Church has believed from of old that there can be only one true baptism, namely that which is performed in her bosom: One, Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. 4:5). In the Symbol of Faith there is also confessed "one baptism," and the 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles directs: "A bishop or a presbyter who has accepted (i.e., acknowledges) the baptism or the sacrifice of heretics, we command to be deposed."

However, when the zeal of any heretics in their battle against the Church has weakened and when there was a question of a mass conversion of them to Orthodoxy, the Church, to facilitate their union, has received them into her bosom in a different way....

St. Basil the Great, and through his words an Ecumenical Council [the Sixth], while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church there is no true baptism, allows, out of pastoral condescension, which is called "economy," the reception of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism. And in accordance with such a principle, the Ecumenical Councils permitted the reception of heretics in various ways, in accordance with the degree of the weakening of the heretics' enmity against the Orthodox Church.

In the Rudder [Book of Canons] the following explanation of Timothy of Alexandria is given. To the question: "Why do we not baptize heretics who convert to the Catholic Church?" he replies: "If we did this, a man would not soon convert from heresy, being ashamed of a second baptism; thus by the laying on of the priests' hands and prayer, the Holy Spirit descends, as the Acts of the Holy Apostles testifies."

With regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to preserve baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans), in Russia since the time of Peter I the practice was introduced of receiving them without baptism, through a renunciation of heresy and the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece, the practice has also varied, but almost 300 years ago, after a certain interruption, the practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and Protestantism was reintroduced. Those received in any other way have (sometimes) not been recognized in Greece as Orthodox. In many cases such children of our Russian Church were not even admitted to Holy Communion.

Having in view this circumstance and also the current growth of the ecumenist heresy, which attempts completely to erase the difference between Orthodoxy and any heresy – so that the Moscow Patriarchate, notwithstanding the holy canons, has even issued a decree permitting Roman Catholics to receive communion (in certain cases) – the Sobor of Bishops acknowledges the necessity of introducing a stricter practice, i.e., to baptize all heretics who come to the Church, only in case of necessity and with the permission of the bishop allowing, for reasons of economy or pastoral condescension, any other practice with regard to certain persons-i.e., the reception into the Church of Roman Catholics and those Protestants baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, through a repudiation of heresy and chrismation.

9. On the Giving of Communion to Roman Catholics and Old Believers by the Moscow Patriarchate (Sept. 15/28)

In regard to the decision of the Moscow Synod to permit Roman Catholics and Old Believers to receive communion without the renunciation of their errors, a decision that was confirmed by the decree of the gathering which called itself an All-Russian Sobor, we have decreed:

The lack of accord of the decree of the Moscow Patriarchate, concerning the granting of communion to Roman Catholics, with Orthodox dogmatic teaching and the Church canons is completely clear to any person even slightly informed in theology. It was justly condemned by a decree of the Synod of the Church of Greece. The holy canons do permit the communication of a great sinner who is under penance (epitimia) when he is about to die (I Ecumenical 13, Carthage 6, Gregory of Nyssa 2 and 5), but there is not a single canon which would extend this to include persons foreign to the Orthodox Church, as long as they have not renounced their false doctrines.

No matter what explanation Metropolitan Nikodim and the other Moscow hierarchs might try to give this act, it is completely clear that by this decision, even though with certain limitations, communion has been established between the Moscow Patriarchate and Roman Catholics. Furthermore, the latter have already made the decision to permit members of the Orthodox Church to receive communion from them. All this was particularly clearly demonstrated in the service held on December 14, 1970, in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, when Metropolitan Nikodim gave communion to Catholic clerics. It is perfectly clear that this act could not be justified by any need. By this act the Moscow Patriarchate has betrayed Orthodoxy.

If the 45th Canon of the Holy Apostles excommunicates from the Church an Orthodox bishop or cleric who has "only prayed together with heretics," and the 10th Apostolic Canon forbids even prayer together with those who are excommunicated, what can we say about a bishop who dares to offer the Holy Mysteries to them?

If catechumens must leave the church before the sanctification of the Gifts and are not permitted even at the point of death to receive communion until they are united to the Church, how can one justify the communicating of persons who, being members of heretical communities, are much farther away from the Church than a catechumen, who is preparing to unite with her?

The act of the Moscow Synod, which was confirmed by the recent Sobor of the Moscow Patriarchate in Moscow, extends the responsibility for this un-Orthodox decision to all participants of the Moscow Sobor and to their entire Church organization. The decision to admit Catholics to communion is an act which is not only anticanonical, but heretical as well, as inflicting harm on the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, whereas only true members of the Church are called to communicate of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Moscow decree, logically considered, recognizes as her members those who, through their doctrinal errors, in both heart and mind are far from her.