Response to: Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, The Beacon of Light (Revised) by Fr Nikita Grigoriev
Archpriest Nicholas Dalinkiewicz
10 January 2007
Emotions and tensions surrounding the pending Act of
Canonical Communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow
Patriarchate are gaining momentum, particularly amongst those of us who oppose
union because the result looks like fate accompli. The non-union group is
pinning its hopes on a document written by Fr Nikita Grigoriev,
instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Seminary, Jordanville
– not so much in expectation of a reversal of outcome but rather as an island
of hope and refuge, and possibly as justification for breaking away from the
united MP-ROCOR. The document is titled: “Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, The Beacon of Light (Revised).” The title is preceded by
the description: “A long but excellent rendition of the history of the MP
and
For the sake of rational analysis of Fr Nikita’s paper,
attitudes regarding union will be classified into five categories. What
differentiates one category from another? – Its response to the question: What
is God’s will concerning union? Naturally within any group there will be
varying degrees of intensity of feeling; but be that as it may, these Group
descriptions are adequate for analytical purposes.
|
No |
Group Category (Attitude Concerning |
Response to Question: What is God’s Will? |
|
1 |
Those who
don’t care |
I don’t
care about God’s Will |
|
2 |
Those who
are concerned but do not know where to go and are easily swayed. They rely on
finding the answer by hearing the best arguments |
I don’t
know, but would like to know |
|
3 |
Those
emphatically in favour of union |
God’s
Will, without doubt, is that ROCOR must join MP |
|
4 |
Those
emphatically opposed to union |
God’s
Will, without doubt, is that ROCOR must not join MP |
|
5 |
Those that
are neither opposed to, nor in favour of union, but
are only concerned about the outcome being according to God’s will; in actual
fact, not in mere perception |
I don’t
know but God’s Will will
prevail if that is what we seek collectively. (not knowing God’s Will does not mean
that it is beyond reach) |
Groups 3 and 4 will argue that they too want to do (and
in fact are doing) God’s will; but that is not entirely correct. In reality,
for them God’s will is subservient to their own will, but to push their cause
they equate their will with God’s.
Group 2 would probably be on par with Group 5 in this
regard.
Group 1 is indifferent for the wrong reasons; it is
apathetic not only concerning the Accord but towards Orthodoxy in general.
By its very nature this topic must be a volatile issue
and any Christian response must therefore be neutral in tone, with focus on
facts rather than philosophical predisposition. A calm rational analysis is
required because emotions always produce a dual outcome:
-
They are a barrier to understanding God’s will
-
Emotions always convince us that we are correct, and by virtue of this
correctness, we must be doing God’s will; thus emotions in this situation are
deceitful
Both pro and anti union groups tend to be emotionally
charged and therefore both see themselves as representing God
in this do or die battle. If we belong to either group 3 or 4 we need to
ask ourselves: how do I know that what I want is what God wants? Am I motivated
by Revelation, or Interpretation? If you think it is revelation, then it pays
to also ask yourself: what is it that is so special about me that warrants me receiving such revelation? If conversely it is
interpretation, then how objective is my view, and why is it that my ‘enemy’
brother or sister cannot see what I see? The problem is that the ability to see
things objectively is inversely proportional to the intensity of our feelings
about the topic in question; the more intense our views are, the more we see
only what we want to see, and deny the possibility that truth may prevail on
the other side, at least in part?
Fr Nikita’s publication on the surface presents a
powerful case for no unification, at least in the foreseeable future. To any
unbiased observer, however, this article is slanted quite noticeably, and
statistically speaking, the degree of this slant is a measure of departure from
objectivity. Our intention, in analysing this
paper, is to negate the slope; this will give the impression that we are
pushing the cause for union with
Fr Nikita uses fourteen specific arguments in his paper
to convince the reader that union will be a betrayal of the Russian Orthodox
Church. Instead of considering each argument separately and evaluating the
validity of each one individually from the outset, we will make an overall
observation first and then follow up individually as required.
All arguments presented by Fr Nikita depend on one
fundamental claim, or assertion: that the Moscow Patriarchate is entirely
without grace. If this is true then union would be wrong. On the other hand, if
grace does exist with Moscow Patriarchate, then the issue becomes rather
complex; but irrespective of its complexity, as long as grace exists, the
anti-union group is faced with the dilemma of explaining why members of ROCOR
should be precluded from attending a liturgy where Christ is present. How can
anyone say: do not go where Christ is?
Everything hangs on the premise that
In Argument 6 (below) Fr Nikita points out that
Metropolitan Kyril (also written as Cyril) was senior
to Metropolitan Sergius; and in Argument 7, Metropolitan Kyril
(and other bishops) rejected the Declaration. Argument 9 points out that after
Metropolitan Peter was killed, the Russian Church Abroad commemorated
Metropolitan Kyril, who was the other locum tenens
chosen by Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Kyril was a
highly respected hierarch who played a key role during this tumultuous period;
in terms of seniority he was second to Patriarch Tikhon. Consequently the views
of Metropolitan Kyril are of fundamental importance
in guiding us today, just as they were in his time in steering the Church.
Fortunately we have access to his epistles that are directed at Metropolitan
Sergius. Metropolitan Kyril has been canonised by the Church Abroad, as have been Patriarch
Tikhon and the other martyrs. So if we want to know what God’s will may be
concerning union, what better guidance can we have that hearing the words of a
saint who was directly involved in the conflict and suffered martyrdom?
The Epistles of Metropolitan Cyril of
THE MOST EMINENT of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox
Church after the death of Patriarch Tikhon was, without doubt Metropolitan
Cyril of
His observations on the nature of the Church's unity and
oneness of mind, on the necessity to reject canonical legalism in the Church,
on the question of breaking communion and on the presence or absence of grace
in the Moscow Patriarchate and those who have separated from it, remain very
relevant for our own day.
Epistle No. 1: June 6/19, 1929
Metropolitan Kyril describes
his relationship with Metropolitan Sergius thus:
Therefore, until Metropolitan Sergius abolishes the Synod
which he has established, I cannot acknowledge as obligatory for me to fulfill
a single one of his administrative-ecclesiastical decrees given with the
participation of the so-called Temporary Patriarchal Synod. Such a relationship
to Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod I do not understand as a separation
from the part of the Orthodox Church administered by Metropolitan Sergius since
the personal sin of Metropolitan Sergius concerning church
administration does not do harm to the Orthodox dogmatic teaching observed
by this part of the Church also.
I am not separating from anything holy, from anything
that authentically belongs to the Church. I fear only to approach and cling to
that which I recognize as sinful in its origin, and therefore I refrain from
brotherly communion with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors
who are one in mind with him, since I have no other means of accusing a sinning
brother. Therefore, I acknowledge it as a fulfillment of our archpastoral duty for those Archpastors
and all who consider the establishment of the so-called "Temporary
Patriarchal Synod" as wrong, to refrain from communion with
Metropolitan Sergius and those Archpastors who are of
one mind with him. By thus refraining, for my part, I am not in
the least affirming or suspecting any lack of grace in the sacred actions and
Mysteries performed by Sergianists (may the
Lord God preserve us all from such a thought!), but I only underline my
unwillingness and refusal to participate in the sins of others.
Therefore, I will not liturgize
with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors of one
mind with him. But in case of mortal danger, with a peaceful conscience I
will receive Unction and the final prayers from a priest appointed by Sergius
or who submits to the Synod established by him, if there is not present a
priest who shares my relation to Metropolitan Sergius and the so-called
"Temporary Patriarchal Synod."
But in itself such a commemoration of the name of
Metropolitan Sergius cannot be made the responsibility of laymen and should not
serve for them as an obstacle to attending the Divine services and receiving
the Holy Gifts in churches which submit to Metropolitan Sergius, if in the given
locality there is no Orthodox church which preserves unharmed its canonical
relation to the Locum
Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. And to pray for Metropolitan
Sergius, together with other Archpastors and Orthodox
Christians in general (on lists for commemoration at the Proskomedia, molebens, and so forth) is not a sin. This is the duty of
all Orthodox Christians, until a general church excommunication shall declare
the abuse made by Metropolitan Sergius of the church authority entrusted to him
to be a sin unto death. (Matt. 18:15-17; I John 5:16)
Epistle No. 3: October 28-30/November 10-12,
1929
The third epistle is a letter written by Metropolitan Kyril directly to Metropolitan Sergius.
I refrain from liturgizing with
you not because the Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ would not be
actualized at our joint celebration, but because the communion of the Chalice
of the Lord would be to both of us for judgment and condemnation, since our
inward attitude, disturbed by a different understanding of our church
relation to each other, would take away from us the possibility of offering in
complete calmness of spirit the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise.
Therefore, the whole fullness of my refraining concerns
only you and the hierarchs one in mind with you, but not the
ordinary clergy, and even less laymen. Among the ordinary clergy there are very
few conscious ideologues of your church activity. . .
Epistle No. 4: January, 1934
In his fourth epistle Metropolitan Kyril
explains that the separation within the Church is an administrative matter; it
is not a sacramental issue.
The disorder in the Russian Orthodox Church I view not as
concerning the teaching which She holds, but as
concerning administration.
Epistle No. 5: February, 1934
It is no secret that the Moscow Patriarchate was
infiltrated by imposter clergy during various stages of its existence. Needless
to say, they possessed demonic grace. But not all MP clergy were imposters;
others struggled as much, for the sake of God, as did those who rejected the
Moscow Patriarchate, and many MP clergy were also martyrs, something that Fr
Nikita does not acknowledge – sadly. In any event, Metropolitan Kyril comments on the validity of the Sergianist
mysteries in his fifth epistle.
But the Mysteries performed by Sergianists
who are correctly ordained and not prohibited to serve as priests, are
undoubtedly saving Mysteries for those who receive them with faith, in
simplicity, without deliberations and doubts concerning their efficacy, and who
do not even suspect anything incorrect in the Sergianist
order of the Church.
Summary of St Kyril’s
Epistles
-
Metropolitan Kyril does not view himself as being
separated from the Church administered by Metropolitan Sergius.
-
The separation is about Church administration and in this regard this is a
personal sin of Metropolitan Sergius.
-
Metropolitan Kyril only refrains from communion
with Metropolitan Sergius; to refrain from something does not negate it, but on
the contrary, recognizes implicitly its validity.
-
The single most important statement by Metropolitan Kyril
is about existence of grace: “I am not in the least affirming or suspecting any
lack of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists(may
the Lord God preserve us all from such a thought)”
-
Metropolitan Kyril further confirms the existence
of grace in the sacraments of the
-
To pray for Metropolitan Sergius, together with other Archpastors
and Orthodox Christians in general (on lists for commemoration at the Proskomedia, molebens,
and so forth) is not a sin.
-
Metropolitan Kyril refrains from serving with
Metropolitan Sergius because due to their different understanding of their
church relations, there would be no possibility of performing the liturgy in
complete calmness of spirit.
-
Metropolitan Kyril views the disorder in the
Russian Orthodox Church as being an issue that concerns administration and not
the teaching which the Moscow Patriarchate holds.
St Kyril’s epistles negate
entirely all the arguments put forward by Fr Nikita, so much so that no further
comment is required.
But for the sake of completeness, and because union with
MP is such an emotive issue, we will continue with our analysis.
Historical Views of ROCOR on Grace in MP
Did ROCOR at any stage deny the existence of grace in the
mysteries of the Moscow Patriarchate?
St John Maximovich
Comments (3)
The "Decision" of the Synod of Bishops states:
"The situation of the Church in
St John Maximovich referred to
the Moscow Patriarchate as the
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Here
MP-ROCOR ACCORD ~ Part II
1990 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (5)
ROCOR has always viewed the separation between MP and
itself as being an administrative one, not spiritual.
The Council of Bishops, in their encyclical dated 9
September 1927, declared: "The free portion of the Church of Russia is
terminating administrative relations with the ecclesiastical administration
in Moscow [i.e., with Metropolitan Sergius and his synod], in view of the
fact that normal relations with it are impossible and because of its
enslavement by the atheist regime, which is depriving it of freedom to act
according to its own will and of freedom to govern the Church in accordance
with the canons."
The 1990 epistle is a direct extension of
Administrative separation has no direct bearing on grace.
Grace departs when clergy or individual branches of established churches
introduce heresy into their teaching, as was the case, for example, with the
split between the Orthodox Church and
In November 1969, Fr Alexander Schmemann
(Dean of St Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary) wrote a polemic in the Orthodox
Church (the official publication of the Russian Metropolia
in
Father Alexander fails to distinguish between ‘heresy’ –
theological departure from the Faith – and ‘schism’ – an administrative
rupture. Although heretics are not members of the Church, schismatics
retain their membership (I Const., Canon 6). Thus, violation of canon law which
may, in some instances, lead to schism does not necessarily lead to apostasy.
To break a canon law may be impious, but in itself it is not heretical. (6)
In case we feel that this is merely the personal
interpretation of Fr Micheal Azkoul,
let us look at St Basil the Great has to say.
Heresies is the name
applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the
faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of
ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst
themselves … [Concerning heresies] the question is one involving a difference
of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with
the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be
set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism,
they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church.(7)
St Basil then comments on a specific group of heretics -
the Pepuzeni. For us these comments have value in
that they prescribe how heresies should be handled (as distinct from schismatics).
As touching the Pepuzeni,
therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed
against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned Montanus and the Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comfortor). They
deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify
themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the
Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; accordingly they are thus liable
to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit is unpardonable.(8)
The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius does not involve
heresy, and therefore does not affect the spiritual status of MP!
1994 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (9)
ROCOR bishops considered that already in 1994 it was time
to establish contact with MP to test the water about resolving our differences.
Conscious of our own responsibility before God and men, we,
the hierarchs of the Church of Russia who are free of all outside interference,
propose that the time has come to seek an active contact with all the parts of
the One Russian Orthodox Church, which have been separated from one another on
the strength of historical circumstances.
Lesna Convent,
17/30 November 1994
+ Metropolitan Vitaly
+ Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco
+ Archbishop Alypy
+ Archbishop Laurus
+ Archbishop Lazarus
+ Bishop Benjamin
+ Bishop Seraphim
+ Bishop Cyril
+ Bishop Ambrose
+ Bishop Metrophanes
+ Bishop Hilarion
+ Bishop Eutychius
+ Bishop Valentine
+ Bishop Daniel
This is of particular significance to
1987 Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the
ROCOR (10)
The 1987 epistle issued by the Synod, under Metropolitan Vitaly (and including Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco) recognised that the Moscow Patriarchate is the Mother
Church, not a title that would have been used if MP was indeed schismatic and
without grace.
The … declaration of Metropolitan Sergius It deprives the
Patriarchate of Moscow of freedom, justifying the total arbitrary rule of the
regime in the affairs of the Church.(subsequently
Patriarch), that the interests
of the Church and the atheistic government are identical, to this day still
forms the basis of their relations.
These are the changes which the faithful in
Let us all rely on the omnipotent help of God, for what
is impossible for men is possible for God, Who worketh wonders. We shall await
the results of the "universal renewal," believing that what is
impossible today may become possible tomorrow.
+Metropolitan Vitaly of Eastern
America and
+Archbishop Antony of
+Archbishop Antony of
+Archbishop Antony of Western America and
+Archbishop Laurus of
+Bishop Alypy of
+Bishop Hilarion of
November 7/20, 1987
The Unity of the Church
by Fr. Michael Pomazansky (11)
Fr Nikita draws the conclusion that at the time that
Metropolitan Sergius signed the Declaration and joined forces with the
Bolsheviks, MP became a schismatic group. Fr Michael Pomazansky,
on the other hand, explains that the process is not that cut and dry; schism,
together with loss of grace, is not something that has the precision of a
mathematical formula, especially when it involves multitudes of innocent
victims.
The Church is one not only inwardly, but also outwardly.
Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the
oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the grace-giving
hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of
canonical order.
The unity of the Church is not violated because of
temporary divisions of a non-dogmatic nature. Differences between Churches
arise frequently out of insufficient or incorrect information. Also, sometimes
a temporary breaking of communion is caused by the personal errors of
individual hierarchs who stand at the head of one or another local Church, or
it is caused by their violation of the canons of the Church, or by the
violation of the submission of one territorial ecclesiastical group to another
in accordance with anciently established tradition. Moreover, life shows us the
possibility of disturbances within a local Church which hinder the normal
communion of other Churches with the given local Church until the outward
manifestation and triumph of the defenders of authentic Orthodox truth.
Finally, the bond between Churches can sometimes be violated for a long time by
political conditions, as has often happened in history. In such cases, the
division touches only outward relations, but does not touch or violate inward
spiritual unity.
In the prayers of the Church are contained petitions for
the ceasing of possible disagreements among the Churches: "Cause discords
to cease in the Church; quickly destroy by the might of Thy Holy Spirit all
uprisings of heresies" (Eucharistic Prayer at the Liturgy of St. Basil the
Great) Endnote
In the 20th century Russian Orthodox Church, a church
administration was formed in 1927 by Metropolitan Sergius (the
Metropolitan Sergius’ Motives
St John Maximovich believed
that, even after Metropolitan Sergius succumbed to the pressures and torment,
he still was aware of ‘content’ of the Declaration and its effect on the
Church. “It can hardly be that Metropolitan Sergius himself
believed that anyone abroad would submit to his Ukase, and he did
this clearly in order to fulfill the demand of the Soviet regime and thus remove
responsibility from himself.” (12)
Metropolitan Sergius, in fact confirms this in a letter
he sent to Metropolitan Agafangel:
[In] a January 1928 letter Sergii
begged Metropolitan Agafangel not to break with him,
to have a little more patience, ‘until it becomes clear where we are leading
the ship of the Church: to a relatively bearable existence in the given
conditions, or to a catastrophe. In another message, he promised that his uncanonical removals and appointments of bishops and other
policies were a temporary expediency that would soon be abandoned once the
church situation had been normalized.” (13)
The Orthodox scholar, Fr John Meyendorff
likewise views this to be the case.
Metropolitan Sergius acted in accordance with his
conscience, in the hope of being able to re-establish some form of
administrative machinery for the Church, then virtually nonexistent, and thus
safeguard the embryo of a church, as it were, for the future. (14)
The Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius
What are the actual words of the Declaration?
We wish to be Orthodox, while at the same time recognising the
It is not uncommon in theology and spiritual life to
encounter statements that have multiple meanings; the most obvious example has
been given to us by the Lord Himself in the prayer Our Father: “Give us
this day our daily bread.” The bread here has dual meaning: it refers to Holy
Communion, and it also refers to the normal bread that we eat each day. We
encounter such multiple levels of meaning regularly in the homilies and
commentaries of the holy fathers. At times, ‘prophetic’ statements have been
made historically that were not (fully) understood at the time of their
utterance, even by their author, but the meaning of which became obvious
further in time. We see this in the Gospel of St John [11:47-51]
Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a
council, and were saying: What are we doing? For this man is performing many
signs.
If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in
him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.
But a certain one of them, Caiaphas, who was a high
priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all,
Nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you
that one man shall die for the people, and that the whole nation should not
perish.’
Now this he did not say on his own initiative; but being
high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation.
It so happens that the Declaration of Metropolitan
Sergius also fits this category. Everyone equates the crucial words: “we wish its
joys and successes to be our joys and successes” with the joys and successes of
the communist regime headed by Lenin; specifically the word ‘its’ is taken to
mean the Bolsheviks.
Our capacity to not understand what we see and
hear is such a dominant trait that the Lord was forced to accommodate this
human weakness by teaching in parables.
And He said, unto you it is given to know the mysteries
of the
The problem is not so much that the wording of the
Declaration is ambiguous; it is not. The problem is that people read into the
Declaration what they want it to say. The Declaration does not say that
we wish ‘the joys and successes’ of the Bolsheviks to be our joys and successes.
Such an interpretation is what the communist regime wanted people to
understand, and that, unfortunately, is what happened.
So what does the Declaration say? It says that we wish
the joys and successes of the
Politically the USSR was divided (from 1940 to 1991) into
15 constituent or union republics – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia, Estonia,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Russia, Tadhikistan, Turkmenstan,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan – ostensibly joined in a federal union, but until the
final year or so of the USSR’s existence the republics had little real power.
When one speaks of
The fundamental policy, however, of the Communist party
of the
Use of correct terminology is a must here; hence we will
also refer to Wikipedia for further confirmation. (17)
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 as the
union of Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and
Thus the country
However, in the context of the Declaration, almost
everyone, without exception, interprets the term ‘
However, if we swap the term “Soviet Union” with “
We wish to be Orthodox, while at the same time recognising
If the Declaration was worded this way, with the name
“Soviet Union” replaced with “
Metropolitan Sergius does not say:
We wish to be Orthodox, while at
the same time recognising the Communist party of the
When one considers the predicament that Metropolitan
Sergius was in, one cannot help but conclude that the precise wording of his
Declaration must have involved Divine inspiration. To reiterate, the words
of the Declaration do not refer to the Bolsheviks (as has been assumed by
virtually every person that has ever formed an opinion about the Declaration),
but rather they refer to the country ruled by the Bolsheviks, and as
such the actual Declaration does not betray the Church or the Russian people.
If it was not possible to avoid making a Declaration (in the belief that
the consequences would have otherwise been far worse), then it would be nigh
impossible to come up with better words (words that were least damaging).
Thus the words of the Declaration could not be the reason
for the (subsequent) conflict and violence that continued unabated in one form
or another – the words became the scape-goat.
The explosion of evil rather stemmed from the lies and hatred of God harboured by the (possessed) Communists, combined with the
betrayal of Christ that already existed in the hearts of much of the population
during the period leading up to the Revolution. Consequently the end result
would have been much the same whether the Declaration existed or not.
It should also be noted that the name change from ‘
The fact that Metropolitan Sergius subsequently ‘told
lies’ about the state of the Church, merely reflects his inability to cope with
pressure applied to him, not only in terms of his own personal safety, but the
threat of execution ofpatriarchal117bishops, the menace posed by the
Revisionists, and the welfare of the Church in general. In that situation it is
quite feasible that Metropolitan Sergius also viewed his own proclamations that
followed the Declaration to be lies, which he expected to be viewed as such by
others; hence his own irritation and lack of peace when speaking to opposing
hierarchs.
Metropolitan Sergius, however, was not alone in issuing
statements that were forcefully extracted, or fabricated, by the Bolsheviks.
[On] June 28, 1923, in his first encyclical after his
release … as well as in his encyclical of July 15, the patriarch assured
the Soviet government of his civic loyalty, apologized for his former
anti-Soviet stand and maintained that he had adopted a loyal stance since 1919.
As evidence of this he cited his disagreement with the
[When] Metropolitan Benjamin learned in Petrograd that a
plan was afoot to profane the relics of St Alexander Nevsky,
he sent a delegation to Zinoviev, the president of the local soviet, asking him
to revoke the order, and solemnly promised to suspend any cleric under his
jurisdiction at once if any gave assistance to the Whites. (19)
Local Consequences
Prior to examining the specific arguments used by Fr
Nikita, let us do a local detour. On a number of occasions ROCA (
On the other hand, if Fr Vladimir did not have the grace
of the priesthood, then the
That is the local problem faced by the anti-union
parishioners; one that cannot be ignored. Although we used
Arguments Against
Argument 1
The reason why we can’t ‘join the MP’ is very simple.
They are a schismatic group that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in
1927 under Metropolitan Sergius and to this day remains in that schism. The
fact that they have become very powerful, with the help and support of the
atheistic government, is entirely irrelevant. They are, from their origin and
to this day, a schismatic group that separated from the Church.
Comment
Schism comes in two versions, as explained previously; it
can be due to heresy (the worst kind, that results in departure of the Holy
Spirit), or it can be due to disputes of an administrative nature (where both
groups remain within the Church). Argument 1 fails to recognise
the difference between the two, and therefore erroneously attributes lack of
grace to MP on the grounds that it is separated from the Russian Orthodox
Church. Because the separation is not on heretical grounds, then, as explained
by St Basil the Great, MP remains within the Church.
Furthermore, St John Chrysostom explains in a homily that
in the apostolic era it happened that the Pharisee priesthood was at times
bought; yet despite this corrupt practice, for the sake of the people God
accepted as valid the priestly functions performed by these ‘priests.’
In all its services the holy Church prays: “For the peace
of the whole world, for the welfare of the holy churches of God, and for the
union of all, let us pray to the Lord.” This petition stands in direct
opposition to Argument 1. The normal clichéd response to this observation is:
let ‘them’ come to us; in this case however, that is what ‘they’ are in fact
attempting to do, and so the fact remains that God wants ‘union of all,’ but Fr
Nikita says no.
When the Church prays: “for the union of all,” this
petition can only apply to those who are not in union; otherwise it would be
senseless to petition God to join what is already joined. Logically therefore
this petition is addressed to those who are not united.
Argument 2
It is extremely important to understand what a schism is.
A schism is not a division of the Church into two valid parts that are no
longer in communion with each other.
[The Church] is the body of Christ and as such, it is
indivisible, in as much as the body of Christ is indivisible.
A schism occurs when a group of people leaves the Church
and consequently, breaks communion with the Church.
If the schismatics repent …
then they may be received back into the Church through a special rite of
confession and absolution AND by the reinstatement of The Holy Spirit in
them by the Church. If they persist in their position that is in opposition to
the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of the Church, they remain outside of
the Church.
Comment
As discussed above, this argument is wrong; a
(conventional/administrative) schism is precisely a division of the Church into
two valid parts that are no longer in communion with each other.
Argument 3
From his youth, Met. Sergius was
an extremely ambitious man who was obsessed with power.
When Tuchkov met
with Met. Sergius … Met. Sergius saw a great career
opportunity and Tuchkov saw a chance to create a
schism in the Church.
Most likely [the Declaration] was a joint effort, with
comrade Tuchlov dictating and Met. Sergius
obliging. The end result was that on July 29, 1927 Met Sergius signed
the infamous “Declaration of Met. Sergius” … most importantly it lay the foundation for the creation of nothing less than
what may be rightfully called the Antichrist Orthodox Church.
Comment
Concerning Metropolitan Sergius’ ambitions and obsession
with power the evidence is to the contrary.
St John Maximovich (21) pointed out that: Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], who very
much loved Metropolitan Sergius and inwardly suffered for his beloved disciple
and friend, wrote him personally a letter of admonition, which probably
never reached him or in any case was no longer able now to influence his
behavior.
The picture painted by Fr Nikita concerning Metropolitan
Sergius’ character is at odds with Metropolitan Anthony’s relationship with
Metropolitan Sergius. St John also explains that rather than being propelled by
ambition and obsession with power, Metropolitan Sergius was indeed concerned
about the welfare of the Russian Orthodox Church, and that he was subsequently
broken by not only threats to himself but also to the Church.
After the death of Patriarch Tikhon, the Russian Church
Abroad acknowledged the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan
Peter of Krutitsk; however, he was soon arrested and
banished by the Soviet regime for his firmness and his unwillingness to make
concessions to the atheist regime. The Church in
"My dear hierarchs, you ask me to be a judge in a
matter of which I am entirely unaware... Can the
This was the last letter of Metropolitan Sergius in which
he freely wrote that which within himself he acknowledged as true.
Imprisonment, threats with regard not only to himself but to the entire Russian
Church as well, and the false promises of the Soviet regime broke him: within a
few months after his letter, so full of love, to the hierarchs abroad, which
was as it were his testament before his loss of inner freedom, Metropolitan
Sergius issued [the] ... Declaration of July 16/29, 1927). At the same time, in
accordance with the promise he had given the Soviet regime, Metropolitan
Sergius demanded of the clergy abroad their signatures of loyalty to the Soviet
regime.