Bishop Kyrill solemnly promised me he would never
serve with the Serbs, but at the first opportunity
after his taking over the San Francisco diocese, he
served with Bishop Jovan of the Serbian Patriarchate.
This occurred this summer (2000). I have known about
and been distressed over serving with the Serbs for
years, but when Bishop Kyrill "went over" to the
"other side," I concluded that I no longer had an
excuse for postponing breaking with ROCOR...
Bishop Kyrill even sent me a leter in June of
this year stating Papist ideas outright. He said that
the Holy Spirit is GUARANTEED to speak the truth when
the bishops meet in council, but that a priest and his
flock should not discuss dogmatic and canonical
questions, because that falls under he purview of the
synod alone. He told me to put aside my canonical and
dogmatic questions because "Trust in your God-given
bishops and attention to your pastoral duties will
lead you safely to the haven of salvation." In
December of last year I had begged Bishop Kyrill to
recognize that ROCOR must establish a tenable
ecclesiology on the basis of the canonical and
dogmatic traditions of the Churcch. He answered that
he neither knew nor cared to know about such
things.---from a letter to me by a priest who left
ROCOR, September 15, 2000.
From a priest that left ROCOR
Moderator: Mark Templet
From a priest that left ROCOR
Why a ROCOR priest left part 1
The ROCOR hierarchs serve with the Serbian
Patriarchate and commemorate the Patriarch of
Jerusalem. Even if Serbia and Jerusalem now and then
shove her away for their own political ends, the ROCOR
bishops run back to them as soon as possible. In other
words, if ROCOR is in any way separate from these
ecumenist hierarchies, it is not from conviction: they
are "distanced" by virtue of political pressures, but
they are definitely in communion and regard these
ecumenists as Orthodox. They are thus in communion
with heretics...I could no longer in conscience
commemorate bishops who serve with heretics. Bishop
Kyrill solemnly promised me he would never do this,
but at the first opportunity after his taking over the
San Francisco diocese, he served with Bishop Jovan of
the Serbian Patriarchate. This occurred this summer
(2000). I have known about and been distressed over
serving with the Serbs for years, but when Bishop
Kyrill "went over" to the "other side," I concluded
that I no longer had an excuse for postponing breaking
with ROCOR.
ROCOR not only communes with heretics, but it
teaches heresy...Point Five of the June 1994
resolution concerning Kyprian is that his teaching
adheres precisely to the position of ROCOR regarding
grace among heretics. Thus ROCOR has adopted a
blatant ecclesiological heresy...Now, ROCOR actually
never had said that the ecumenists lack grace, UNLESS
you read the 1983 anathema clearly and simply for what
it says---which the official ROCOR interpretation does
NOT. This acceptance of the Kyprianite theory is
consistent with Metropolitan Vitaly's
re-interpretation of the 1983 anathema as an "idea"
that others are invited to "consider," but not as an
act of the Holy Spirit proclaiming that the ecumenists
have cut themselves off from the Church.
Since the publication of the pro-MP encyclical of
the November 1994 Lesna Sobor, ROCOR has steadfastly
refused to say that the Moscow Patriarchate is in
heresy or is in schism. The most recent ROCOR
statement, the March 2000 "Statement to the Russian
Orthodox People" states flatly that the ROCOR refuses
to apply the term "schism" to the MP. This is treason
to the True Church of Russia, which is the Catacomb
Church. If the MP is a church, then heresy, apostasy,
theomachism, and schism are compatible with being in
the Church. This is an application of Kyprianism. I
believe it is not coincidental that Archbishop Mark's
new ecclesiological position on the MP bcame the ROCOR
position: he is the author of the November 1994
encyclical, which designates the MP as a "living part
of the Russian Church"---just months after the
acceptance of Kyprian's teaching.
ROCOR no longer has a canonical foundation for
activity in Russia, since it purposely drove away the
True Church in Russia and most of the Catacomb Church,
as well as Archbishop Valentin and those with him. It
no longer has a canonical foundation for its separate
existence in the Diaspora, because its only--and very
good, indeed, ESSENTIAL---reason for being a separate
juridiction was that it was Orthodox and the various
other jurisdictions were NOT. If, however, its only
reason to exist is to be "Russian" and provide a haven
for Russians outside Russia, this is not a valid
reason. According to Metropolitan Vitalty's Nativity
Epistle of 1986, the anathema against ecumenism is a
"warning" or an idea that ROCOR invites other
"Orthodox" to consider; it actually anathematizes NO
ONE. Then why be separate? Go back to Russia or
place yourselves under the previously established
"Orthodox" hierarchies in the countries of your
residence. Of course, contrary to Metropolitan
Vitalty's interpretation, the anathema of 1983 really
IS an anathema, and ROCOR falls under it, because it
communes with the ecumenist heretics.
Part 2
Besides these specific betrayals of Christ, ROCOR
has fallen into the spirit of the age, which is
characterized by indifference to Truth itself---the
denial of or lukewarmness to the very existence of
objective reality, much less revealed truth. I came to
this conclusion gradually, based on various kinds of
evidence:
1) The enyclical of 1994, Archbishop Mark's
agreement with the MP in December of 1997, and the
"Statement to the Russian Orthodox People" of March
2000 are all couched in ecclesiastical Newspeak, not
the plain words of the Fathers. I have pointed this
out to various ROCOR people, and they don't even know
what I'm talking about. If they can't recognize
doubletalk, then they themselves have the double mind.
These documents were all purposely intended to be
ambivalent. This is a sign of the spirit of
antichrist...This new method of "communicating" with
the flock warned me that ROCOR had fallen away.
2) I have had many conversations with
"conserative" ROCOR clergy like Bishops Kyrill and Fr
Peter Perekrestov, and their only response to my
specific dogmatic or canonical questions has consisted
of sound bytes like "These things aren't black and
white" and "Things will work themselves out." I have quoted the canons
and asked for a reasoned defense of ROCOR's positions,
e.g., communion with the Serbian Patriarchate, and I
have been told that I "think like a Roman Catholic"
and I am a "legalist" and that the higher spiritual
understanding of the "core group" Russians in ROCOR
transcends simple adherence to the canons. I
concluded that I was not not dealing with rational
men, but with an irrational power structure which
claimed exemption from the Church's traditional
guidelines and even from rational conversation. This
is akin to Papism.
3)Bishop Kyrill even sent me a letter in June of
this year stating Papist ideas outright. He said that
the Holy Spirit is GUARANTEED to speak the truth when
the bishops meet in council, but that a priest and his
flock should not discuss dogmatic and canonical
questions, because that falls under the purview of the
synod alone. He told me to put aside my canonical and
dogmatic questions, because "trust in your God-given
bishops and attention to your pastoral duties will
lead you safely to the haven of salvation." In
December of last year I had begged Bihsop Kyrill to
recognize that ROCOR must establish a tenable
ecclesiology on the basis of the canonical and
dogmatic traditions of the church. He answered that
he neither knew nor cared about such things.
4) Within my own soul I could see clearly that I
was falling into indifference, in order to numb the
pain of being with these men. I either had to numb my
conscience and fit in, or get out. Believe me, I
tried to fit in for a long time; I even tried to FORCE
myself to be one of the boys. I almost lost my soul
in the process. I came very close to despair. Since I
have gotten out of that miasma of doubletalk,
indifference, and confusion, I have been at peace.
Part 3
The big picture is this: all of the historical
Orthodox institutions, all the state-recognized
churches, are inextricably bound up in the great web
of apostasy, which precedes the coming of antichrist.
ROCOR for years has refused to come down clearly on
the side of the True Orthodox, who have clearly and
decisively broken on the ontological level with the
apostates by not communing with them AND by stating
clearly that they are NOT churches, NOT in the Church.
ROCOR's refusal to make a like clean confession of
faith has finally led into outright ecclesiological
error: the positing of the co-existence of Orthodox
and known unrepentant heretics IN THE CHURCH. This is
not only the sense of ecumenism, but a direct assault
on objective truth and rationality itself.
About the question of a local church (ROCOR)
anathematizing heretics. Certainly in the 3 centuries
before there were ecumenical councils and in the 12
centuries since the last ecumenical council, the
Church HAS cast out heretics. Without such an
ability, she could not protect herself from heresy. A
local church or several local churches may make a
pronouncement, and then it is accepted by the
conscience of the Church. When you are in the middle
of that process, it is your DUTY to follow what you
believe to be the conscience of the Church. We are not
"off the hook" until there is a general council of
some kind: everyone is required to stand for the
truth.
Fr Seraphim died in 1982, a full decade before he
knew the full extent of the MP's fall into heresy and
apostasy. Now that we know, would Fr Seraphim be part
of the pro-MP camp? I doubt it, but who knows? Good
men, even righteous men, are not infallible. One of
Fr Seraphim's leading proteges, Fr Alexey Young (now
Hieromonk Ambrose) is telling everyone to stay in
ROCOR, and that the October 2000 Sobor reaffirmed
ROCOR's traditional position. Everyone who is staying
in ROCOR is losing his mind rapidly: I know exactly
what's going on with them, because I almost, within a
hair's breadth away, gave up my rationality and
conscience in order to stay in. My friend, I almost
lost my soul over this. I knew this time last year
that I must get out, that ROCOR was no longer the
historical ongoing Church of Russia, and I compromised
my conscience for months. When I finally left, I was
spiritually and psychologicaly exhautsed and
debilitated. It's a terrible thing to lie to yourself;
it does really bad things to your soul.
Part 4
The Serbian Patriarchate, the ROCOR, and the MP,
along with the conservative faction in the state
church of Greece are coalescing into a "conservative
option" wing of World Orthodoxy. You want uncut
services, long beards, riassas, prayer ropes, and
"elders"---fine, join up with these guys on the right
over here. You want cigar-smoking bishops, short
services, and a Protestant-style---fine, here are our
"wares" for sale on the left over there. Take your
pick...so long as you are part of "Official
'Orthodoxy'." This is a terrible terrible deception,
and most everyone, almost everyone is going to fall
for it sooner or later. I hope I'm not one of them.
Everyone in ROCOR should have taken a clear
ecclesiological stance years ago, They did not; only
a tiny few in ROCOR ever had a clear idea of what had
to be done. Even Metropolitan Philaret would not risk
breaking up the synod by attempting to get a conciliar
decision to order Anthony of Geneva, for example, to
stop serving with and communing ecumenists, even after
the 1983 anathema. ROCOR generated some of the most
important ecclesiological documents we have available
in English, but as a jurisdiction it could not, in the
last analysis, effectively preserve its Orthodoxy. We
have to learn from its good features---liturgics,
instructions in piety, good examples of virtue, and
the good ecclesilogical documents---and separate
ourselves from the bad: the failure to witness to
dogmatic purity and the failure to flee the apostasy
of the age by separating decisively from the rotten
carcass of "Christendom."
What the Platina-ites did---publishing Fr
Seraphim's opinion against SCOBA and then themselves
joining SCOBA---is EXACTLY the method of antichrist:
to say the truth, and then to say or do something the
opposite of the truth, with a straight face. This is
now what the ROCOR is doing: "We're against ecumenism,
rah rah rah...By the way, let's serve with ecumenists,
rah rah rah."
Of course, Fr Seraphim DID have a position: in a
letter to Fr Alexey Young, which he wrote before his
ordination in 1978...,a copy of which I was handed by
Fr Alexey in 1987, he wrote that "We do not serve with
any non-Synod (i.e., ROCOR) jurisdiction." It was that
simple.
-
OrthodoxyOrDeath