ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

[Maria]

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/kh ... s1927.html

Project Canterbury

Code: Select all

Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders.
By the Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky
(President of the Synod of Karlovtsi).

The Christian East, March, 1927, pp. 60-69.

A BULKY volume was written on this subject by V. A. Sokoloff, the very conservative professor of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy, who sets himself to prove that the Apostolic Succession has not been broken in the Anglican Church. The book was published more than thirty years ago.

We shall examine the matter from quite a different point of view, namely, by direct application of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the seven Holy Oecumenical Councils, and of the nine Local Councils confirmed by them. ...

It is important to note that this article is not ecumenistic in any meaningful sense. The entire basis of the Metropolitan's argument is that the Anglicans are separate from the Church and that their rites are therefore graceless. Metropolitan Anthony was actually stricter than most in this regard. In his lifetime he made many enemies by insisting on the Orthodox Church's exclusive claim to grace. It is very unusual that he is now being regarded as some kind of proto-ecumenist. Of course, he labored to bring Anglicans and Old Catholics into the Church, but he was always strict in his insistence that schismatics and heretics were outside of the Church and consequently graceless.

Thank you for sharing this information.

[m. Evfrosinia]

When we discuss the supposed "ecumenism" of hierarchs such as Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), I think it's important to remember that the Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was quite different from what we observe in these confessions today. There were no women priests or same sex marriages, there was a reverence and respect for tradition, a sense of the sacraments, etc. Anyone that remembers pre-Vatican II Roman Catholicism also knows that that was something quite different from what we see today. These Christian confessions were much, much closer to a more traditional, and in some cases, Orthodox confession of faith, and there was reason to hope and pray that dialogue might lead some of these groups to return to Orthodoxy. This is especially true of the Anglicans, and meetings and discussions were held in Moscow in the early 20th century to explore the possibility of entering into communion, as the case had been made that the Anglican Church had preserved Apostolic succession and did not accept the papacy. The above cited article by Metropolitan Anthony was obviously written with that dialogue in mind, and we can see from it that Met. Anthony's thinking was not at all ecumenist. We cannot blindly assume that what we see amongst the heterodox today is what the Russian Church saw there 100 years ago.

[m. Evfrosinia]

After the Revolution and the beginning of the persecution of the Church in the Soviet Union, the hierarchs of ROCOR also hoped that support for the persecuted Russian Orthodox Church from the Archbishop of Canterbury and prominent Roman Catholics would save lives, as the bolsheviks were eager to have the Soviet government recognized as a legitimate one, and to establish diplomatic relations. There is evidence that the complaints of the Archbishop of Canterbury did in fact play a major role in the soviets' decision to free Patriarch Tikhon and not to execute him along with other hierarchs accused and imprisoned during the campaign to appropriate the wealth of the Church. Several ROCOR hierarchs as well as Met. Evlogiy in Paris attended various heterodox prayer meetings for the persecuted Russian Church in those years. They did not concelebrate, though they did on occasion address those present. In a similar fashion, they were at times invited to attend various consecrations, blessings etc. I do not think that it is fair to consider the largely diplomatic greetings offered and statements made on such occasions as confessions of faith.

[m. Evfrosinia]

In conclusion, during their first years outside of Russia, the hierarchs of the the ROCOR kept up contacts amongst the heterodox, and to some extent, entered into various dialogues with them, as that had been established still in Russia before the revolution. I do not believe, however, that this makes them ecumenist, nor that you can find any heretical document of an ecclesiological nature made by them during this period. After World War II, when ecumenism began to develope, and the branch theory began to spread and was widely accepted, Divine Providence lead the hierarchs of ROCOR to elect Met. Philaret as their Primate. I believe that he was the first one to truly understand the dangers of ecumenism, and to warn all of the orthodox against it, as we can read in his "Sorrowful Epistles". Ultimately, this resulted in ROCOR's anathema against ecumenism.

[Archimandrit Nilos]

This book of Sokolov was a great mistake. Anglicans are Protestants. They have given up the apostolic succession. Protopriest Alexis of Maltzew in his different works were giving convincing proofs.

[Archimandrit Nilos]

More examples:
http://anglicanhistory.org/usa/jhhbrown ... c1887.html

[Archimandrit Nilos]

https://www.google.ch/search?q=Fond+du+ ... 1Wxh6DM%3A