Autocephalous Church and OCA

[Ivan Krasnov]

Dear Maria, Fr. Mark, and Subdeacon Ephraim,

Thank you for your responses.

Fr. Mark, I wanted to ask, since I have read quite a bit online about the tragic break up of a large part of the ROAC diocese in America several years ago, what are the chances and what is being done or may be done to heal that rather heavy blow to ROAC in America? It would seem it was not over a difference in faith per se.

Maria, I did find the websites useful, thank you. Here is what I have written to Met. Moses, in part:

"I have an interest in learning about the divisions of the past and about contemporary attempts at healing them or prospects thereof. I have some acquaintance with the recent events in HOCNA. I am writing to you as someone knowledgeable about your former brethren in HOCNA. I was wondering if there are to your knowledge any non-religious reasons why any of them have not followed you and Bishop Sergios, or is the split between you all solely a difference over interpretation of canonical requirements? That is to say, is there anything binding priests or bishops to Boston, say of an economic or other character that perhaps plays a role? I am only trying to understand certain perplexing rationales for some divisions continuing."

Though I am awaiting now a response from him, I would gladly receive any information you all or anyone you know might have concerning this.

Thank you very much for your help and toleration.

In Christ,

Ivan

[Mark Templet]

Dear Ivan,

Yes, there were some events that put a black-eye on ROAC from several years back. Most of it occurred prior to my entry into ROAC, so I am not able to speak to the events themselves. As you can imagine with nearly everything that occurs, the scuttle-butt on the internet is rarely completely accurate or tells the whole story. I have seen this with my own eyes. I contribute much of it to the lack of understanding and language barriers in the early days of ROAC in America. This is the root cause of many issues or at least exacerbated them. Plus there is always the issue of people misrepresenting themselves and their intentions.

At any rate, the main thing we have tried to do is just quietly say our prayers and avoid scandals as best we can. Bishop Andrei’s leadership is stern but gentile, and he is a great bridge between Russian and us. We are quietly growing and being very judicious of receiving new clergy or parishes, having learned from the mistakes in the past.

We are all fallen human beings and ask all of your prayers for us.

[Ivan Krasnov]

Dear Fr. Mark,

Thank you for your very temperate reply. I appreciate that.

I think your stated policy of avoiding scandals is a very good one; I too would like to avoid giving any stumbling-block to those inside or outside, and I would like to see stumbling-blocks that drive good, but perhaps not too strong, people away from Orthodoxy done away with. That is why I think its necessary to address questions of why divisions happen and how they could be reasonably healed without scandal, for the sake of the love and fear of Christ who is losing souls because of this, which must be of concern to all clergy and all faithful who love Christ and contemplate the fearful answer one has to give for what one could have done, but did not do that was within one's powers. It certainly bothers me, grieves me daily, and a parochial 'I am not my brother's keeper, what can I really do?' hasn't yet sufficed my conscience. Who does not know of loved ones or brethren fallen away in part or whole due to these divisions that rend friends and loved ones and brethren apart, seemingly for eternity. I think the division and potential solution should be examined, definitely has to be examined and discussed, and not put off or excused, but not in a competitive, one-uping way but in a charitable, reasonable way, such as yields where possible, gives every side the benefit of the doubt where possible, and with the least possible mutual demands made/conditions set. Because ultimately divisions that happen for reasons other than faith help neither side but hurt everyone in general in the long run, whatever may be the reasons and human failings involved. I hope I always live up to these stated principles; I would invite others to subscribe to them. I would like to see a united Greek Orthodox Church and a united Russian Orthodox Church in harmony in America and abroad. Perhaps, that is not entirely possible in some cases at present, but the case of ROAC seems to be perhaps one of the most susceptible of easy solution. Therefore, its going to be the subject of my first posting of suggestions toward the desired goal. I would appreciate any suggestions of yours or ROAC people about forgotten or ill-resolved issues or indications of holes in my treatment of the topic I am entering into in the same temperate way you answered me just before this. I'm going to treat it just this immediate problem of ROAC [re]unity, not anything beyond that yet.

As far as I understand it, the canonicity of the Russian Orthodox Church in modern times rests on Ukaz #362 of Patriarch Tikhon and those decrees that were made by the united Sobor, Patriarch, and each Patriarchally-appointed Locum Tenens. Other decisions, actions, judgments, etc. have a provisional, not final character, being subject to the review, overturning, dismissal, or confirmation of a restored form of the previously mentioned governing entities. This Ukaz gives leeway for saying that where the Faith has not been renounced and where a false autocephaly hasn't been proclaimed, divisions and separations that may arise among Russian Orthodox bishops do not have the sort of one-side-only-validity rule that would apply if there were a Patriarch and a united Sobor were being defied by a rebellious minority or individual. As I see on your bishop's website and elsewhere, Metropolitan Valentine has never yet taken the position that he alone or only those with him constitute the fullness of the Russian Orthodox episcopate and speak in its name. Now, it is rather well known that it was only after the Metropolia definitely united with the Soviet pseudo-church as its head and thereby left the Russian Orthodox Church that the ROCOR synodally resolved to no longer permit common prayer with its members. Before that time, it apparently was still permitted. It is well known that although a three-way division happened within the ROCOR in the late 1920's, with all sides declaring each other schismatic or deposed or similar things, that in 1936, through the mediation of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia, the three sides came together in reconciliation and put behind them as null and ill-considered and not to be further spoken of, their former decrees of excommunications and supsensions. Might ROAC in America find a similar solution?

You say the division is to be attributed chiefly to misunderstandings based on language communication difficulties? I can well understand that playing a major role. But is it not scandalous that nothing has been worked out or attempted since then, if I am to take your silence on that point of my question as implying 'nothing has been or is being done' - though so many years have passed? To what benefit is it that people seeking Orthodoxy in this age of apostasy are presented with additional unnecessary warring factions and competing claims beyond the difficulties of getting beyond the traps of outright heterodoxy and pseudo-Orthodoxy and pseudo-scientific atheism? Surely the Russian Orthodox Church in America would gain and retain more converts and more repentant lapsers united in love than parted in hatred?

I would address these questions also to anyone here or addressable representing the other side or sides in that break-up. I cannot say I speak officially for Abp. Makarios, yet I can say that I have had every intimation that he would be pleased to see more unity between the fragments of the ROAC.

As I understand it, of all the allegations made that I have read and of all the violations of canons cited, the principle still existing issue (for most of the others either have literally died or fallen away, thereby losing present significance, and many could be dismissed as apparent misinterpretations and miscommunications - see further on below) is to whom did Bishop Andrei owe canonical obedience - to his Bishop and Abbot as a priest-monk or to his Synod's Metropolitan? I am sure you will say "to his Metropolitan" and the other side would say "to his Bishop and Abbot." Without entering into that question, why not pardon each other and just accept the status quo and restore unity? There are precedents for it, and what could be more important than the unity of those of the same faith and church and the removing of scandals and stumbling-blocks among true Orthodox?

Now, I come to what may be a second issue, not really a bar to reunion, but perhaps a practical discouragement to it - a divergence in how to handle relations with those outside seeking communion with ROAC. You mention an increase in wisdom in who is admitted to ROAC in America, implying the cause of scandal was controversial receptions on this side of the Atlantic. It would seem from what I have read that this was precisely what the main part of the miscommunications and resulting split were over - besides the aforementioned question of canonical possession and ordination of clergy/monks. In some of these cases, it would seem that Abp. Gregory felt better informed about the basic critical character of some of the people being received on this side of the Atlantic than Metropolitan Valentine, and Metropolitan Valentine felt that Abp. Gregory was less informed than he was and was causing unnecessary trouble and hindering the growth of ROAC abroad, and offending some leaders of parishes already within ROAC. Also, I see that Abp. Gregory recognizes Abp. Makarios, and at least the Russian part of ROAC, but not the canonical Orthodoxy of anybody once or now connected with the Cyprian-ROCOR union or Astoria, and this is very clearly, sharply stated. I can see that Metropolitan Valentine prefers a less polemical public stance, an avoidance of statements about grace most of the time, although in some older issues of "Church News" by Matushka Anastasia Shatilova, I have found interviews where the Metropolitan clearly took some similar positions to Abp. Gregory, as well as in his first declarations to the ROCOR after the Lesna Sobor on why he was discontinuing union with ROCOR, but most of the time in no where near the bald-faced or forthright, potentially offensive manner that Abp. Gregory tends to state this in. I also see that he consistently postpones talks with other groups (groups that Abp. Gregory might outright reject) on the plea that these are not united among themselves yet, so that in practice he makes no practical attempt at relations or communion with any other synod, though it would seem he proudly accepts fraternal greetings from Abp. Makarios' Synod and posts them on his website and he received Abp. Gregory with no rite of reception whatever from the latter Synod.

So, in practice in relation to communion with or recognition of other churches, it would seem that they were not so different, and they were able to remain together so long as a kind of temporary status quo of public policy was kept, but they were driven apart by a differing policy of dealing with those who publically stated a very different set of views - Abp. Gregory publically & clearly countering the controversial claims, Met. Valentine calling more ambiguously for public silence by all ROAC members on the question. I see that a great amount of controversy was raised by the Metropolitan's repeated pleas to his synod for pastoral tolerance and patience with the very outspoken and trouble-making Fr. Gregory Lurie and his parishioners, who generally found a reason for publically accepting and defending everything the overwhelming majority of his bishops and church members apparently rejected or found very undesirable, and representing it artfully as the position of the ROAC Synod. I see that in old Paradosis-list postings these two groups (or perhaps three if the English parish of ROAC is triangulated in opposition to both on some points) fought quite a bit publically over just what the position of their synod was, perhaps just because it wasn't clearly, publically, officially stated. I see that Metropolitan Valentine eventually did expel Fr. Gregory Lurie and his outspoken followers, but only after a lot of controversy went on for a long time, losing parishes in England and it seems in America and the threat of succession of Catacomb parishes' bishops in Russia.

It seems, then, that since the Metropolitan, through a very prolonged pastoral forbearance toward those publically misrepresenting positions of the Synod, got himself and the Synod misrepresented as favoring those views by the Lurie-sympathizers, despite some disclaimers of non-endorsement, and the American and English parishes reacted by publically declaring positions and policies sharply and perhaps more rigidly opposite to these than necessary. For example, I read where Abp. Gregory fought with Olga Metrinina/Nun Xenia over the ROAC Synod's position on baptizing or chrismating or otherwise receiving people from HOCNA. Abp. Gregory perhaps diverged from ROAC policy in declaring that he baptized people from HOCNA and chrismated them and that this was the policy of the Synod since Metropolitan Valentine had accepted and gone along with this in the case of HOCNA Deacon Paul Kalamiras, whom Abp. baptized at the latter's request and whom the Metropolitan [re]ordained. Olga perhaps diverged from ROAC policy in stating that there was no officially-stated policy on reception of HOCNA clergy because the HOCNA was definitely recognized by the ROAC as canonical - whereas it had never been so recognized and the personal actions of the Metropolitan in America implied the opposite - however, much Olga/Nun Xenia felt Holy Nativity Convent and Holy Transfiguration Monastery definitely represented Orthodoxy over here to her and Fr. Gregory Lurie. (As for the Synod of Abp. Makarios, several years before my baptism in this Synod, it did not accept the canonicity of HOCNA, and Abp. Makarios has since written more fully against it.) A similar fall-out happend over how the ROAC actually related to the reception or relationship with many other persons on this side of the Atlantic, and ironically, all those whom Abp. Gregory objected to receiving, but were received by the Metropolitan ended up leaving the ROAC, as did the Lurie-ites, or in the case of Fr. Michael Graves of Haiti, dying, whereupon the 188 Haitians in dispute returned to the patriarchate-ecumenists. It would also appear that some controversy arose over how to deal with actions allegedly taken by ROAC's administrator Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff of New Jersey, actions, which if true, were attributed to senility rather than conscious ill-intent, who is now no longer among the living.

From a practical viewpoint, then, it seems that whatever the past and the objects of past contention, the only existing present divider is the old contention over who had the canonical right to decide whether Bishop Andrei should be made a bishop - the Metropolitan's presidential rights vs. the Bishop & Abbot's diocesan rights. That seems to be the not so insurmountable real reason for your division in ROAC in America. Why not forgive and forget and return to unity? The other actions of the past could be assumed to be as you said based on misinterpretation and miscommunication due to language difficulties and general human passions/failings temporarily going to extremes of self-defense and mutual suspicion, now irrelevant and susceptible of charitable re-interpretation.

As I said, I think as far as first steps go in resolving divisions among those of the same faith, the ROAC break-up is the easiest one, and it has been, therefore, my starting point for suggestions. I hope you will give what I said some thought, and I look forward to hearing from you about it, and perhaps what maybe your bishop might think of the idea.

In Christ,

Ivan

[Mark Templet]

Ivan,

Thank you for a very thorough examination of the past. However, I think it represents more heavily one point of view. So let me present some facts:

1: There is no Abp Gregory; he was canonically deposed and excommunicated. You can see such documents on our website.
2: The canons are absolutely clear that a Metropolitan (equivalent to an Archbishop in the Greek Church) has the right to come into a diocese for candidates. It was Gregory who first submitted his name for episcopal candidacy, how can a bishop suggest a man for bishop and yet not think that he is releasing him? This is a non-starter.
3: There is much about the other people who departed from ROAC that you are not aware of. Since I do not speak for ROAC in an official capacity, I suggest you call Bishop Andrei and ask him you questions personally.

My own personal opinion is that both Gregorys are mentally unstable. They have no business being in authority or guiding people's souls. I have had to personally deal with more than a few poor individuals who were damaged by Gregory of Colorado’s maniacal ways. I can assure of this: If he’s in ROAC—I am out.

Now, as far as unity with others in America, I would like to see that. I have several friends from a number of different jurisdictions. ROAC does not maintain that we are the only ones maintaining Orthodoxy in Russia or anywhere else. After all this time and disappointment, things move at a snail’s pace among bishops. Do I think there will be unity in the future between ROAC and others? Yes, but it will probably take several years to come.

Ivan, I do feel your thirst for a united True Orthodox Church that shows the world a face of forgiveness and crystal-clear Orthodoxy, but I am afraid that this will not come about until the next generation is in place; Bishop who have not felt wronged from other clergy. But make no mistake, ROAC believes (as I am sure most of us do) that everyone who is confessing true Orthodoxy are already united. This unity is not produced by having clergymen concelebrate with each other; rather such is only a final manifestation.
As things stand right now, I have a great bishop and functioning synod. I have been entrusted with the care of a parish, so my focus is mainly on those people. I leave these matters to the bishops.

God help us all!

[Ivan Krasnov]

Dear Fr. Mark,

Thank you for your forthright reply. I appreciate that, better to be clear than vague, yet I have found perhaps there is a useful charity in biting one's lip, though I don't always do that unfortunately.

I understand you can't officially speak for your synod, as I don't for mine. Nonetheless, sometimes discussions begun on non-official levels and by non-bishops can come to some useful ideas and fresh points of view to put before bishops for consideration if they are so disposed. I would consider contacting your Bishop, but I have to wonder if perhaps discussing such potentialy touchy things with strangers is harder than discussing through trusted mediators. I also think that whatever is said has to be given time for thought and rumination, because I think unfortunately, the grief and bitterness of past polemics in self-defense tends to linger on a long time and result in point-blank refusal to reexamine the past in a less hasty way and a tendency to dogmatize what may be only one accustomed way of looking at things. As you say, it may be that unity will come in another generation on account of the bitterness lingering on, though it should not be among Christians with 'forgive us our debts as we forgive' everyday on their lips. I also wonder if the repose of the principles in the dispute will not simply canonize all their human foibles and mistakes in the eyes of their faithful. I addressed a similar statement to what I wrote you to Dormition Skete recently, and the response was no final ultimatums about persons in or out, yet a doubt that something could be worked out while the principles were alive - not so much their own unwillingness as their belief in the total intrasigence of the other side. I think this is a untried prejudgment and capitulation to enmity born out of fear rather than a tried and proven/certain fact. It somewhat reminds of the absolutism of Calvinism - here are the eternal evil people and here are my eternal elect of God, no repentance, no reconciliation - just the elite elect and the mass of perdition. One ought to read St. Dionysius' Letter wherein in he recounts the dream of Carpus, who had such a view, and how Christ presented himself to be struck and murdered by Carpus in place of the apostate he had prayed for the Lord to hasten to death of, so that Carpus' church should be rid of his unhallowed disturbing existence. Christ said, "Know that I am willing to suffer again and again if need be for the salvation of sinners." The polemics in ROCOR in the 1920's were no less severe, no less lacking in clear declarations that both sides had no grace, that they were evil conspirators or criminals and enemies of the Christian race, etc, yet it was worked out and not with loss of face or position in 1936. As I say, I think if both sides would stop attacking each other and make some charitable pardons for Christ sake, something acceptable to both sides as conditions for reunion might at least begin to show up. But you say, 'if he's in, I'm out' and call him a maniac, and say no thought of reconciliation is possible, but only his death. Perhaps he might reconsider some of the habits or ideas you find maniacal, and compromise in such a way as he doesn't feel is a betrayal of the faith, or perhaps he might turn out on examination not to be quite the way one pictures him peering out over the trenches of your long sectional warfare. You never know, nut if you count him to be the very devil himself, well you really have sat in judgment on his soul before the Great Judgment and passed sentence, which is a rather fearful thing to undertake, even if it should prove to be your bishop's present judgment too.

About the three points you mentioned, Fr.Mark, I confess, I don't find in any ROAC synodal document the word's 'deposed' or 'deposition', nor actually 'excommunication' either. I do see some places where your bishop or a lay person has spoken in such terms in their own writings, but without a synodal statement to that effect it seems to be a apologetically/polemically-born intepretation - understandable if in the eyes of Abp. Gregory and Bp. Andrei their episcopal legitimacy is mutually exclusive owing to how heavy-handedly things were handled. I do find a statement that the ROAC is breaking off (administrative) communion with and removing from common membership in the ROAC synod Abp. Gregory. However, in light of Ukaz #362, which your synod still declares itself founded on, and your synod's own claim to not be the restored Highest Church Administration of Russia, to which alone is reserved the right of review, final confirmation, and judgment in all cases, this only seems to be the way it says in the Ukaz that one should act when there is a unresolvable controversy - break off communion between the accused and your autonomous church administration, while the final decision, judgment, and confirmation are reserved exclusively to the restored Patriarchate and unified Sobor. As to a canonical trial, I don't see that anywhere - I see accusations, I see statements by Metropolitan Valentine, a few statements by the clergy who left Abp. Gregory to go with Met. Valentine about Abp. Gregory, but I don't see him hailed before a court where his judge is not his accuser, which is something required by the canons. So, this is why I don't find a basis yet in what I've read for not calling Abp. Gregory, Abp. Gregory, or perhaps for not calling Bp. Andrei, Bp. Andrei, since Abp. Gregory deposed him too with citations of canons, I believe, whether he was contradicting himself or not, as you mention, I don't know, but certainly its a possibility, and that would be a reason for him to reexamine his precipitous decree of deposition and seek a wiser harmony instead of this all-destructive in-fighting among people professing the same faith.

As to what authority the canons give Metropolitans, I think maybe you are aware that Metropolitan Philaret and the ROCOR put foremost above all the 34th Apostolic Canons which says that neither the Metropolitan nor the bishops will do anything outside of their own diocesan management without the preceding harmonious agreement of all by which the Holy Trinity - one God who is love in Three Equal Persons - will be truly honored. Consequently, the sainted Metropolitan did not impose his will autocratically on the bishops, nor could they proceed in a way he fixedly opposed (because united holy conciliarity/sobornost is the trait of our Church rather than hierarchies rising to a pinnacle of autocracy - 'judging all but judged of none' with 'immediate universal jurisdiction'). By this sacred canon, ROCOR managed to remain united and Orthodox for over 70 years, until Metropolitan Vitaly told the ROCOR's Secretary of the whole of its existence practically - Bishop Gregory Grabbe - that the canons were now to be discarded and not carefully scrutinized and strictly adhered to, but the bishops would act according to impulses and personal opinion, whereupon the whole ship foundered and broke to pieces and True Orthodoxy lost its main united and unifying bulwark that gave the Greek Church (non-Matthewite) her bishops. And we ought not to forget that under the latter system, your metropolitan was given a trial - not strictly canon-based on which account he denied its authority in writing - was suspended and effectively deposed by Metropolitan Vitaly's decree of his involuntary 'retirement' based on Met. Vitaly's personal judgment. The argument rings true for that what is licit for one Metropolitan must be licit for another, and contrariwise what is not licit.

It also appears obvious to me that a strictly authoritative canon-based interpretation of your split shows no ecclesiastical severances and removals from canonical office, but an administrative dismissal and expulsion from a post within a temporarily automous church or synod - he's no longer your bishop, but does that mean Met. Valentine made him no bishop - that would imply he was claiming to be the fullness of the Russian Church and its Patriarch - and if he believes himself such he needs to say it and sign and seal with a patriarchal seal. But that's not your synod's position, and so I am justified in saying you can't refer to what they issued as some kind of universal, absolute, and final exclusion from the canonical Russian Orthodox episcopate. Such would fly if your Synod was the Autocephalous Patriarchate of Moscow (Tikhonite - restored), but are you prepared then to say that all those Russian bishops who aren't with you or haven't submitted to your Metropolitan are outside the Orthodox Church as defying their ecclesiastical canonically-requisite head/Patriarch? If you're not ready to say that, then you're also not legally as Russian Orthodox able to say there is no Abp. Gregory - he was excommunicated and deposed because, not that its written, but because we expelled him and we are the Russian Church, we are it, and if he's not with us, he has no validity - he's a schismatic, etc., as are also all the other Russian Bishops not with and under us. Even the ROCOR, with all its genuine authority and numbers never claimed that after Met. Theophilus and the Metropolia split from submission to the ROCOR in 1946. It was only when they declared that Soviet Patriarch Pimen was their canonical head, that the ROCOR crossed them off from the roll of Russian Orthodoxy. I suggest that both sides then temper their polemics at least to the point of stopping the denial of each other's validity, and then work on resolving the conflicts and concerns that caused the break-up - even if as you say it moves from then on at a snail's pace - still the essential division has in reality already received healing and only a deeper healing is taking place. Its alot like a marriage or a family - you may hate many things about your spouse or siblings, but you have no authority to dissolve the marital or family union and not call them spouse or brethren so long as they have stayed faithful to Christ who is over them and whose authority has united what man cannot separate. Similarly, your Russian Orthodox Autocephalous Church may have divisions among bishops and temporary autonomous synods within it, but no side has the authority to pronounce the union under the Tikhonite Patriarchal Authority & future Sobor dissolved, no matter how sharply you disagree with each other, unless one leaves the Faith or the Tikhonite Autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church.

I don't think you would suffer much from calling Abp. Gregory a brother and he you, even if you each continue telling people the other is wrong in some important points of contention and you don't accept his views and don't recommend each other. God will be the ultimate judge of all that. The Patriarchates of the past had no less serious contentions, yet they kept an acknowledgment of their brother-Orthodox within the bounds of the canons so that even if canonical violations happened and vicious fights occurred, and things were done worthy of deposition according to the canons, yet so long as the other side likewise hadn't departed the bounds of the canonically established Autocephalous Churches and the dogmas of the Faith, and no authoritative council had deposed the offender, they were brethren, they had valid mysteries, and things could improve. This is how the Orthodox Church held together for so many millenia, and contrariwise how the Pope left it in his intrasigence. If things don't happen this way, then no matter how many generations pass - and God doesn't seem to have many more for us - the hatred won't die, the division won't heal - it will just be perpetuated by the knowledge that our forefathers said that 'it is us or it is them and we are mutually exclusive'.

Now, if by canons, you refer to the practices that obtained under the Regulation of Tsar Peter - which were a borrowing from Lutheran and Calvinist Erastian bureaucratic-dictatorial consistorial systems (the apparent model of which is used in 'retiring' bishops and priests 'from their posts', contrary to the security in their 'posts' provided accused bishops and priests by the canons) - a bureaucratic-consistorial system imposed by force without either local or universal church consent, which system was abolished by the All-Russian Church Sobor of 1917-18 when it restored the Patriarchate,...if you mean those Petrine canons, I don't think these are compatible with the canons being cited by the ROCOR or by your Metropolitan in what he wrote accusing Abp. Gregory - which are the canons of the Apostles and Ecumenical Councils, replete with Patriarch Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras the Byzantine commentators' remarks! If you refer to the Consistorial system's regulations, what use to cite what is not in force? I don't find your Metropolitan even cited once the Book of the Consistory in fact, and just as well since that presupposes a Most-Holy Governing Synod of four Metropolitans of specific sees - none of Suzdal, by the way, under the iron rule of a lay oberprocurator - a system defunct and dead ever since the Sobor of 1917-18. In the canons of the Orthodox Church, rather than of Tsar Peter, I find many canons that do state that a bishop cannot be removed from his flock without a full canonically carried-out trial and canonically-based guilty verdict, and that such trial is carried on before not the Metropolitan alone, but the Synod with him and the accused, and that whoever the accuser is he cannot be a judge, but a panel of a certain number bishops must be convened to arbitrate and decide between accuser and accused, and their witnesses, and that the accused is given months and multiple opportunities to prepare and appear. I don't find anything like that happened in this case, which is why I say that to all appearances, despite the larding therein of numerous counter-accusations and several (unsworn) witness statements, the documents that initiated the split actually have no other legal interpretation than a severance of Abp. Gregory's communion with your Autonomous Russian Orthodox Church's remaining bishops (and Russian religious corporation, shades of the Lamian-Kiousis split, to me), which is not the same as either excommunication from the Autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church, which your synod admits it don't speak officially or authoritatively for, nor a canonical trial imposing a sentence of deposition, which neither is what is written therein, nor could it be canonical given that the judge was the accuser, among other things. St. John Chrysostom, I find mentioned in the Rudder, as having denied any legitimacy to his deposition by the Patriarch Theophilos and the Synod of the Oak just based on this one point alone.

What I find most precious about Orthodoxy is that its rules and dogmas have not changed with the political and personal whims of emperors, patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, or priests, as have all other groups styled Christian but what the Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles and Councils reigns on this earth in Her Christian Body - a sacred body, not a corporation, not a bureaucracy, which savor of this earth and the ambitions and egoism of men, but a universal acknowledgement of God's sovereignty which overrides even what may seem temporarily beneficial to short sighted, human understanding. I read and I completely encourage you to find and read the sermon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy and the Good & Bad Thieves of St. John Maximovitch the man of God of our recent times, as St. Philaret styled him, and one whom no one can credibly say is uneducated or un-Russian or un-Orthodox or unpleasing to God wherein he repeatedly states that the canons of the Apostles and the Holy Councils are words of the Holy Spirit and those who deny them or abrogate them, alleging the change of time and circumstance, commit the most horrible sin against the Holy Spirit mentioned by our Savior in such dread terms. He likens obedience to the canons and breaking our own wills to the Cross our Savior commanded us to carry and the Cross on which He suffered and those on which the Thieves suffered, which raised the humble good thief who repented of his lawlessness and accepted that his sufferings under that cross were just and confessed Christ's sovereignty - that raised him (St. Dismas) to heaven as a confessor - and which contrariwise sent the bad thief, the same sort of lawbreaker, but who rejected bearing the yoke of his cross under which he suffered temporally/carnally as not right and rejected the Lord's sovereignty - that sent him straight to hell. Thus part of 'the most just scales' so well depicted by the last cross bar on the Russian Orthodox Cross, is humbling oneself, denying one's own ideas of who is right or wrong or why, and adhering strictly to the limits of the canons and what they say about people of whatever sort (God is the true & just judge) with whom we are at odds.

So, I say, my interest is in unity among those of the one Faith and one Baptism and one overarching Russian Orthodox Autocephalous Body's Head, and pardon me, but I think so long as all sides continue to break the canons to form earthly religious corporations and bureacracies or act like ones for sectional reasons, and then hurl assertions of canonical punishments at each other and at the pitiful sheep without following the canons in how to arrive at it, - well I think, in several generations or maybe just one - we won't have an Orthodox Church to speak of any more, but just the handful of faithful laity that St. Joseph of Petrograd said might be all that was left still with the Savior in loyalty at the last moments of the Church's earthly existence, when at last our Lord will descend to save Her from a horrible time when so many cheats and betrayals of brethren happen that the love of the multitude for the truth cools to indifference and scarcely any flesh could be found being saved at our Lord's coming, when He spoke well-nigh doubtfully about finding anyone keeping and believing the Faith once for all time delivered on this earth. How many mitered heads will be found on the left with the goats for a lack of love for the poor and needy laity and their betrayed brethren for all of whom Christ poured out that inestimable painfully shed Blood and died, but whom they deemed unworthy of extending any hand of charity or even addressing at all as not being of their corporation or bureaucracy? On Mt. Athos they say if a man can't honestly say, Forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors, then he is not a Christian and is not allowed to say 'Our Father', when he denies his brother. How cold, how chillingly cold and unchristian would I seem to myself to just blow all the scandal of division off and consign its resolution to a time supposedly when clergy won't remember grudges, and go on with my prayers! My God, that time when bishops humble themselves a little before each other has to be now, it always has to be now if we all are praying the Lord's prayer and beginning a fast like we are, for we know what kind of fast the Lord told Isaiah He demands of us - not mere abstinence from food, but the loosing every unjustly imposed bond on our brethren, 'calling brethren even those that hate us', and finding reconciliation and showing mercy. Recall that St. John the Merciful Patriarch of Alexandria refused to serve the liturgy until everyone he knew held something against him had been reconciled, even at his own expense, in accordance with our Savior's commandment that if you are going to bring a gift to the altar, but know your brother has something against you, leave off the offering, so as first be reconciled to your brother, and then come to me. The same Lord says, unless you forgive all your debtors, so much (unforgiving punishment) will the Lord likewise to do you in the Judgment - but if you forgive, you will be forgiven; if you show mercy, you will be shown mercy.

Please forgive me if I have transgressed the bounds of proper respect to you or anyone in this in my grief for all the lost, scandalized souls I have seen because of this in-fighting and in my desire for love and harmony. I do agree with you that we are all sinners, I acknowledge that no one, including also myself today, is blameless and without hurtful mistakes, and we all are in need of God's forgiveness. I only do not think that silence on my part if I see a means to reconciliation is God-pleasing and for me to supress. However, as I said, I don't always successfully restrain my lips within right bounds, and do believe that in my much speaking, there probably does not lack something that is a sin some place(s), as I have read from the inspired words of Solomon. Forgive me, and may God forgive and help us all.

In Christ,

Ivan

[Mark Templet]

Here are Gregory's charges, suspension and retirement:
http://www.roacusa.org/Ukaz130.htm

Here is is failure to report to spiritual court before his brother bishops:
http://www.roacusa.org/Protocol48.htm

Here is his excommunicaton:
http://www.roacusa.org/2004Protocol49.htm

Please, by all means, if you think Gregory is on the level, call me and I can give you the phone numbers of several people who will be glad to attest otherwise. Call your own Fr. Steven Allen of the GOC for a full report on him for starters.

[Priest Siluan]

Ivan.

Father Mark is very right about Gregory of Colorado, he was correctly expeled from ROAC Synod, besides he made a great damage to ROAC in USA.