by Stavros Markou
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, although striving—or so it seemed—to protect itself from modernism and the panheresy of Ecumenism, nevertheless failed to do so in a consistent manner. This is evident from the fact that for several years the ROCOR housed new-calendarist parishes and ordained persistent new-calendarist priests and consecrated new-calendarist bishops, such as the Romanian Teofil Ionescu and the Bulgarians Andrei Petkov and Kyrill Yonchev. It is also a fact that Bishop John Maximovitch blessed missions in France to serve according to the papist Paschalion, and, in 1964, Bishop John Maximovitch had single-handedly consecrated the Russian Jew Freemason Evgraph Kovalevsky, who continued to adhere to the papist “paschalion.” Additionally, throughout the period of its history, the ROCOR had maintained communion with such new-calendarists, and has offered the mysteries to the “Parisians,” despite their schism and submission to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as well as to the “Metropolia,” despite its schism and submission to the Moscow Patriarchate. Although there were certainly hierarchs within the ROCOR who did, at least on a private and personal level, hold a true Confession from the very beginning, such as Metropolitans Innokenty of Peking and Theophan of Poltava (who in their writings stated clearly that the new-calendarists had fallen into schism in 1924) and Metropolitan Seraphim Lade (who, on behalf of the ROCOR, assisted the old-calendarists of Bessarabia and was persecuted by the new-calendarist “Patriarch” Miron), and Archbishop Seraphim Sevbo (who was persecuted in Poland for his refusal to abandon the Orthodox calendar), nevertheless, these hierarchs were the minority, and were at several points in time not even in communion with the mainstream ROCOR Synod under Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy. On the contrary, these latter two, Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy never ceased to concelebrate with the new-calendarist Greeks, Romanians and others.
The ROCOR did not have a true Confession of Faith against the new-calendarists and Ecumenists during the presidency of Metropolitans Anthony Khrapovitsky and Anastassy Gribanovsky. Metropolitan Anthony had taken part in the enthronement of “Patriarch” Miron Cristea of Romania, who had not only adopted the new calendar, but also for a time, had even introduced the papist “paschalion” for the first three years (1924 to 1927). In a like manner, Metropolitan Anastassy had maintained communion and frequented concelebrations with the new-calendarist Greek Archdiocese of America. This was not simply a matter of practice, but was the official position of the ROCOR Synod. For, in an address to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Greek Archdiocese of America, on 14/27 September 1961, the ROCOR Synod declared:
“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar a great mistake. Nevertheless, her policy was always to keep spiritual communion with the Orthodox Churches who accepted the new calendar as long as they celebrated Pascha according to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council. Our Church has never declared the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America to be schismatic and did not break spiritual communion with them.”
In another address, to the new-calendarist Church of Greece, on 3 October 1961, the ROCOR Synod repeated this unorthodox position yet again, stating:
“Our Church keeps the Old Calendar and considers the introduction of the new calendar to be a mistake. Nevertheless... we never broke spiritual communion with the canonical Churches in which the new calendar had been introduced.”
This is not a true Confession of Faith, but is rather a semi-ecumenistic mentality, bordering on uniatism. For the “Pope of the East”, namely, the unorthodox Ecumenical Patriarch and those in communion with him, were not only serving according to the new calendar, but were also heavily involved in ecumenistic activity with the Anglicans. Additionally, these new-calendarist jurisdictions were members of the World Council of Churches since its very foundation in 1948.
By maintaining this uncanonical communion with the new-calendarist jurisdictions, the ROCOR was responsible for the following hypocritical paradox. For although the ROCOR claimed to not be in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, it nevertheless maintained full communion with jurisdictions that in turn retained full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. In effect, the ROCOR was in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate! There was no way the ROCOR could escape this vicious cycle unless it officially severed communion with the new-calendarists and ecumenists. This is not only my opinion, but was also that of Archbishop Averky of Syracuse, as recorded in the acts of the ROCOR Sobor of 1961, where he pointed out this most dreadful state of Confession, or rather lack thereof, that the ROCOR found itself in.
During the presidency of Metropolitan Philaret the ROCOR changed its course for the better. After his public Sorrowful Epistles (in which he warned of the dangers of Ecumenism), were not heeded by the ecumenistic jurisdictions, the Metropolitan severed communion with them. Agreeing with him, many of the bishops did likewise, but not all of them. In September, 1971, most of the ROCOR bishops officially embraced the Confession of Faith of the Genuine Orthodox Church, that the new-calendarists and ecumenistic jurisdictions are schismatic and void of sacramental grace. The G.O.C. Confession was openly read by the then Fr. George Grabbe, Synodal Secretary, in the presence of the Synod of Bishops. The ROCOR bishops who were present were therefore received into communion by this very rite of Confession of the Faith, after which the two representatives of the Genuine Orthodox Church, namely, the Bishops Callistus of Corinth and Epiphanius of Cyprus, embraced the ROCOR Bishops with a thrice-holy kiss, accompanied by tears of joy from both Greeks and Russians alike.
However, when the Bishops of the Genuine Orthodox Church requested that the ROCOR Synod provide such a Confession of Faith in writing, such a clear written Confession was never received. However, Archbishop Andrew of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece did receive a letter from Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal (№ 803/May 13, 1972) who, among other things, wrote:
“The calendar issue was settled during the time of Pope Gregory, when the Orthodox Church was called to join the mentioned change. Already from that moment the Church has expressed her opinion, the Church has condemned and anathematized it... During the lately convened Great Hierarchical Council in the cathedral of St. Nicholas in Montreal, the seat of my mediocrity, the eternal condemnation of the papist calendar was repeated, when we in a conciliar manner condemned the heresy of ecumenism, the door to which heresy has been shown in detail to be precisely this issue... If our Holy Church has until recently practiced condescension in the sphere of relations with other churches, it was in the hope that a free Pan-Orthodox Council would be convened, which in our opinion cannot happen without setting free the Russian Church... Seeing, however, that the desired Pan-Orthodox Council not only cannot be free, but also that it may not condemn the innovation and bring peace back to the Church, but that it will actually adhere to the heresy, we, obeying our hierarchical conscience, are ringing the warning bells... What further proof is needed... to show that the confession of Faith of our Holy Synod concerning the calendar change, as one that is the cause of a schism, is clear and consistent?”
Although this letter by Archbishop Vitaly does not state clearly that the ecumenists are void of grace, it does however identify the fact that, although the ROCOR had previously acted with condescension towards the new-calendarists, she did so only because she hoped for a Pan-Orthodox Council to bring about a restoration of the old calendar. However, seeing that no such Pan-Orthodox Council would take place, but that rather World Orthodoxy was plunging itself further into the panheresy of Ecumenism, such a Pan-Orthodox Council cannot be expected, unless it is to be attended only by the anti-ecumenistic Churches, namely the Old Calendarists, Catacombists and ROCOR.
Whereas in May, 1972, Archbishop Vitaly sent the above positive statement, only two years later, on 5 October, 1974, Metropolitan Philaret wrote to Archbishop Andrew of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece (ref. no. 3/50/760), quoting the following decision of the ROCOR Synod held on 12/27 September, 1974:
“Concerning the question of the presence or absence of grace among the new calendarists the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not consider herself or any other Local Church to have the right to make a conclusive decision, since a categorical evaluation in this question can be undertaken only by a properly convened, competent Ecumenical Council, with the obligatory participation of the free Church of Russia.”
Thus, whereas previously the ROCOR Synod had officially embraced the Confession verbally in 1971, and whereas Archbishop Vitaly had stated no future Pan-Orthodox Council including the ecumenists was possible, yet now the ROCOR Synod had officially declared that the true Confession cannot be declared until it is decided by a so-called “future Pan-Orthodox Council,” implying the fantasy that the ecumenists would suddenly make a 180 degree about-face and suddenly anathematize themselves and bring about the restoration of the patristic calendar.
Did the ROCOR Synod truly believe it was possible that the ecumenistic Patriarchates of Constantinople or Moscow, who by this time had already formed their union with the Papists and all manner of heresies, would make such a sudden about-face and call a Pan-Orthodox Council to anathematize new-calendarism, modernism and ecumenism? If not, then who was to call and attend this expected future Pan-Orthodox Council? Perhaps only those Orthodox Churches which kept the old calendar and were not engaged in ecumenical activity. If this were the case, then this Pan-Orthodox Council would only include the Old Calendarists of Greece, Cyprus and Romania, the Catacombists of Russia and the ROCOR itself. However, the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus (“Matthewites”) had held this Confession since the very beginning in 1924. The Old Calendarists under Auxentius (“Florinites”) had wavered on this opinion in the past, but had officially declared the Confession once again in 1974. The Old Calendarists of Romania (be they “Galactionites” or “Victorites”) both held the new-calendarists to be graceless, while only differing on the issue of whether new-calendarists were to be received by chrismation or by baptism. As for the Catacomb Church of Russia, it had held this Confession, to wit, that the Moscow Patriarchate and all those in communion with it are graceless, from as early as 1927, and especially according to the teachings of Bishops Andrew of Ufa, Joseph of Petrograd, Peter of Glazov and Barnabas of Pechersk. Not only this, but a large chain of Catacomb parishes throughout Russia, loosely organized by Fr. Anthony (later named Epiphany) Chernov, had officially declared this Confession of Faith in 1978, although they stated that they were merely repeating what had always been the position of the Catacomb Church of Russia.
Even the ROCOR itself, in the presence of Bishops Callistus and Epiphanius, had officially embraced this Confession in 1971, that the ecumenistic jurisdictions are schismatic and void of sacramental grace. So then, if the ecumenistic jurisdictions were definitely not to be expected to anathematize themselves, and if all of the existing traditionalist jurisdictions had either always held the Confession, or had at least embraced it by 1974, then for what reason could the ROCOR not submit this decision in writing until the supposed summoning of a “future Pan-Orthodox Council?”
Again on 18 September / 1 October, 1974 the ROCOR Council of Bishops declared:
“Manifesting good will, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has called and addressed separate groups of the Church of the Old Calendarists to find the path to make peace and attain fraternal unity. However, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has no canonical power over the Church jurisdictions in Greece and therefore cannot interfere in their life with decisions that would be obligatory in questions of their disagreements.”
The Synod stated this with the misconception that the two Greek Old Calendarist Synods, namely, the Matthewites and the Florinites, were in disagreement over the issue of valid mysteries among the ecumenists. However, the Matthewites held the true Confession, as always, while the Florinites, while wavering in the past, were at this time in agreement with the Matthewites, for the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius had officially declared the new calendarists to be graceless earlier that year (1974), and had even struck a bishop from their membership (Petros of Astoria) for his refusal to comply with this decision. Thus, if both the Matthewites and the Florinites, who were the only anti-ecumenists among the Greeks, had both declared the new-calendarists to be graceless, and since the ROCOR Synod had officially embraced this Confession in 1971 upon their reception into communion with the Genuine Orthodox Church, why could this decision not also be made in writing? Alas, it was the ecumenistic element within the ROCOR, as exemplified in the person of Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, who could not allow such a decision to be made in writing, for it would thwart their desire to concelebrate with the new-calendarists, Sergianists, modernists and Ecumenists, as had been their common practice.
This unfortunate victory on the part of Anthony of Geneva and the ecumenistic element within the ROCOR—the self-same ecumenistic element which eventually caused the submission of the ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate—is what caused the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus to officially sever communion with the ROCOR in 1976, followed by a large portion of the Catacomb Church of Russia in 1978. These three Churches, namely the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece headed by Archbishop Andrew (and now Metropolitan Kirikos), the Genuine Orthodox Church of Cyprus headed by Metropolitan Epiphanius (and now Metropolitan Parthenios) and the Catacomb Church of Russia (at that time in 1978 being without hierarchy and managed by the efforts of Fr. Anthony Chernov, but now headed by Metropolitan Seraphim), have always maintained ecclesiastical communion from then until now, based on the true Confession of Faith. This communion of truly confessing Churches was only just recently joined by two other Churches, namely, the Genuine Orthodox Church of Romania led by Metropolitans Cassian and Gerontios, and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Africa led by Metropolitan Matthew. Thus the true Confession of Faith (that the new-calendarists, Sergianists, modernists and Ecumenists are in schism and heresy, and therefore deprived of sacramental grace) is expressed by a truly Pan-Orthodox Council of Bishops.
Due to the unorthodox position held by the ROCOR Synod as exemplified in its official decision at the Sobor of 1974, the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus were correct to sever ecclesiastical communion with the ROCOR in January, 1976, after two years of patiently waiting for the ROCOR to re-examine its decision. Again, the Catacomb Church of Russia, as represented by the several communities gathered by the labours of Fr. Anthony (Epiphany) Chernov, was also correct to sever communion with the ROCOR in 1978 for the very same reason, namely, the lack of a clear Orthodox Confession on the part of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.
Metropolitan Philaret did hold the Confession of Faith in his private, personal opinion. Thus, in a letter to Metropolitan Epiphanius of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Cyprus, dated 20 September 1975, Metropolitan Philaret wrote:
“From the beginning our Russian Church has known that the calendar innovation was unacceptable, and has not dared to move this boundary set by patristic tradition, for the Ecclesiastical Calendar is a support of the life of the Church and as such is fortified by decrees of Holy Tradition. However, it is obvious to all that the calendar innovation caused a schism in the Greek Church in 1924, and the responsibility for the schism weighs exclusively on the innovators. This is the conclusion that will be reached by anyone studying the Patriarchal Tomoi (as that of 1583) and taking into account the wretched and self-evident fact of the schism and the frightful punishments, persecutions and blasphemies which those who have cleaved to the patristic piety of Holy Tradition have undergone. Thinking in this way, our Holy Synod has decreed that we ‘flee’ concelebrations with the new calendarist modernists. We do not concelebrate with them, nor do we give permission or a blessing to our clergy for such a concelebration. In order to assure you of the truth of what we say, we inform you that whenever a community in the diaspora is received into our Church, they are required to follow the patristic Calendar of the Orthodox Church…”
In the above, although Metropolitan Philaret does not clearly declare the new-calendarists to be graceless, he nevertheless does state that the new-calendarists are the cause for the schism, and therefore schismatics subject to the Patriarchal Tomos of 1583, in which they were anathematized.
Metropolitan Philaret only began to show a clear Confession of Faith in the years after the severing of communion between the ROCOR and the Genuine Orthodox Church. However his position was only heard during his speeches at the yearly Sobor of Bishops, behind closed doors, and these parts of the acts of the Synod were not made public. His Orthodox Confession was also to be found in his completely private and personal letters to various members of his Church. Thus, in his letter to Abbess Magdalena (Grabbe) of Lesna Convent, 26 November / 9 December, 1979, he declared that the “Parisians,” who belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the “American False-Autocephalites,” who were in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and the rest of World Orthodoxy, to be graceless schismatics. Thus, he wrote:
“To such a degree do I not believe in the grace of the schismatics “manipulations,” that in the event that I were dying and it was necessary to give me Communion, I would receive it neither from the “Parisians” nor from the American False-Autocephalites, lest in place of the Holy Mysteries I should swallow a piece of bread and some wine.”
In this same letter he also stated:
“I am accused of excessive strictness and of “fanaticism.” But I have sufficient basis for holding my point of view, for behind me stand great authorities, both ancient and contemporary.’
He then expounds the teachings of various Holy Fathers, and after quoting St. John Chrysostom, Metropolitan Philaret asks:
“What do these clear and categorical words of this Holy Father signify? They indicate nothing other than that schism is graceless! Christ was not divided, and His grace is one. If one is to believe in the “state of grace” of schism, then one must either admit that we do not have grace—those who broke away having taken it with them; or else admit that there are two graces and obviously two true Churches, for grace is given only in the true Church.”
After this, Metropolitan Philaret expresses disagreement with the reposed Bishop John Maximovitch for his actions in France, namely, for failing to express the true Confession of Faith from the very beginning, as he should have. Accordingly, Metropolitan Philaret writes:
“And I cannot understand the position taken on this issue by the late Vladyka John—a true minister of God and a man of God. Why didn't he “dot the i” from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians the total falsehood of their path and position? For it is precisely because of this, because it was not stated at once and clearly where the truth is and where falsehood (for two truths there cannot be), where is white and where black, where light and where darkness, which path is correct and which incorrect—there would not now exist this “inter-jurisdictional hodgepodge” and the position would be clear.”
To this he adds a quote from his fellow-labourer, Archbishop Nectary of Seattle:
“How correct Vladyka Nectary is when he always affirms: there is no such thing as “different jurisdictions;” but there is only the Orthodox Church Abroad, and outside of her are schisms and heresies.”
Archbishop Nectary obviously referred only to the ecumenistic jurisdictions and not to the Genuine Orthodox Church, which had received the ROCOR into communion in 1971 on the very basis of this Holy Confession.
Metropolitan Philaret then provides the following interesting quote from Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky):
“Unfortunately, some Orthodox laymen, even, alas, many priests (and hierarchs) have subjected themselves to this state of gracelessness, although still retaining the outward appearance of the church services and the apparent performance of the Mysteries.”
Finally, Metropolitan Philaret ends his letter with the following comment on the aforesaid quote:
“Ponder those last words of the great Abba: the apparent performance of the Mysteries... What horror! But these his words concur totally with my own conviction regarding the gracelessness and inefficacy of schismatic Mysteries. When at the Sobor I cited these words of Vladyka Anthony in support of my conviction, the hierarchs received them in silence—Vladyka Anthony [of Geneva] likewise held his peace. While Vladyka Filothei [of Hamburg] thanked me on behalf of the entire Sobor for such an exceptionally important explanation.”
Yet it was precisely this very Confession that the Genuine Orthodox Church had asked the ROCOR to provide in writing from as early as 1971. However, the ROCOR Synod failed to do so, which resulted in the severing of communion between the Genuine Orthodox Church and the ROCOR in 1976. Perhaps it can be said, and only by extreme economy, that Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishops Averky of Syracuse, Filothei of Hamburg, Nectary of Seattle, Andrew of Rockland, Gregory Grabbe, and perhaps even others, held a true Confession of Faith on an individual basis, but it can by no means be said that the Synod or the ROCOR as a whole adhered to this Confession, either in theory or in practice. Had the ROCOR boldly confessed this true Confession, it would have sent it in writing as requested, and the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus would not have severed communion in 1976, neither would have the Catacomb Church of Russia done so in 1978.
However, a step in the right direction occurred in 1983, when the ROCOR Synod, under the presidency of Metropolitan Philaret, issued the following anathema against the panheresy of Ecumenism:
“Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called “branches” which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all 'branches' or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!”
When the then Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal first published this anathema against Ecumenism in his periodical, Orthodox Life (Vol. 34, No. 4, July-August, 1984) he characterised it as follows:
“... Without doubt, the time for discussion and polemics has passed and the time has come to judge this movement and, however insignificant our Council of 1983 may seem, it has at last condemned ecumenism and anathematized it...”
Further down in the same article he writes:
“... In regard to ecumenism, every Local Church has had ample time, more than a century, to spend examining it and, if the Local Churches base their teachings and life upon the canons of the Holy Apostles and the other Orthodox Councils, then they cannot but recognize that ecumenism is clearly the most pernicious of heresies, for it has gathered all the heresies that exist or have existed and has called this union a Church — a deed that savours of Antichrist. By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the Local Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or the other. Their future spiritual fate in the universal Orthodox Church will depend upon the resolution of this question.”
However, after Archbishop Vitaly had succeeded Metropolitan Philaret as First-Hierarch of the ROCOR Synod, he had weakened his position regarding the authority of the 1983 anathema against Ecumenism. Thus, in his Nativity Epistle of 1986, Metropolitan Vitaly retreated from his previously Orthodox stance and wrote:
“... We have pronounced an anathema upon the heresy of Ecumenism for the benefit of the faithful of our Church alone, yet we thereby also call upon the Local Churches (in a modest but firm, gentle but decisive manner) to give serious thought to the implication of our action...”
Since when has the Orthodox Church ever considered the term “anathema” to be “modest firm, gentle but decisive?” Since when is an anathema only a warning and not a condemnation? What of Metropolitan Vitaly’s earlier statement, “the time for polemics has passed and the time has come to judge this movement”? Was he then mistaken? Also, how could the anathema be meant to be applied only to members of the ROCOR and not to World Orthodoxy, if the members of the ROCOR were anti-ecumenist while the members of World Orthodoxy were deeply involved in Ecumenism? Such a definition only leads to the following absurd consequence: Whereas a simple but unknowledgeable, ecumenically-minded member of the ROCOR would find himself “under anathema,” the pioneers of Ecumenism such as Meletios Metaxakis, Chrysostom Papadopoulos, Miron Cristea, Athenagoras Spyrou, Demetrius of Constantinople, Pimen of Moscow, German of Serbia, and today’s panheretics, Bartholomew of Constantinople and Alexius of Moscow, would be free from any such judgment whatsoever, and would get off scot-free!
Metropolitan Vitaly then sealed this unorthodox position by uniting himself to the “Synod in Resistance” in 1994. The president of this “Synod,” Bishop Cyprian of Fili, was secretly and most uncanonically consecrated in 1979, in the middle of the night, by the hands of the former Bishop, Callistus of Corinth, who had been deposed by the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Church two years earlier. He was assisted in the consecration by the Florinite Bishop Anthony of Megara, who acted without the knowledge or permission of Archbishop Auxentius even though the consecration occurred within the boundaries of Archbishop Auxentius’ own diocese! Furthermore, although Bishop Cyprian was consecrated by Bishops Callistus and Anthony, both of whom strongly believed that the new-calendarists were graceless, nevertheless, Bishop Cyprian cited his refusal to accept the strict ecclesiology as his reason for creating his own “Synod.” But if the true Confession, that the new-calendarists do not possess valid mysteries, is somehow unacceptable, then why did Bishop Cyprian allow to be consecrated by adherents of such an ecclesiology? Furthermore, Bishop Cyprian’s flock consisted only of new-calendarists whom he would commune of the mysteries without requiring them to denounce their error. For Bishop Cyprian preached openly that the new-calendarists were the “Mother Church,” from which “grace” is obtained, and that the members of this Mother Church, despite being heretics, are only ailing members of the same Church. Yet despite these heretical opinions, the ROCOR Sobor of 1994, under the presidency of Metropolitan Vitaly, declared:
“The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principals as our Russian Church Outside of Russia. This is set forth in detail in their pamphlet, “An Exposition of the Doctrine Concerning the Church, for Orthodox Opposed to the Heresy of Ecumenism.”
Thus, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia officially made Cyprian’s heresy her own!
Bishop Gregory Grabbe protested against this communion with Bishop Cyprian in his letter “The Dubious Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian’s Group” (Church News, No. 5, Sept-Oct 1994, pp 2-4). In this article he writes:
“I have been given the opportunity to acquaint myself with several letters written by one of the bishops of Metropolitan Cyprian’s group. From these it is quite evident that he and his fellow bishops confess their own personal, and in no wise Orthodox, doctrine concerning the possibility of the Grace-filled activity of the Holy Spirit within churches which have become manifestly heretical. ALL the New Calendarists - without the least exception - are likewise very active Ecumenists. The Old Style Churches (Russian and Serbian) have for a long time now also confessed this very same heresy. But behold, this hierarch of Metropolitan Cyprian's group insists on the opinion that, so he says, “the New Calendarists, besieged by the heresy of Ecumenism and Innovation, have not been deprived of Grace, or at any rate, it is not within our competency to make such a pronouncement on our part ... we are not speaking of union with Belial, but (only) with those ailing in faith, several of whom are in need of spiritual treatment ... in view of this, we do not totally break off communion with them.” In another letter the same hierarch expresses the thought - totally unacceptable and absurd from a dogmatic point of view and from that of the Holy Fathers - that this group, while recognizing that the Ecumenists have Grace, is only “walling itself off from their errors.” In pronouncing its Decision concerning communion with Metropolitan Cyprian's group, our Sobor, unfortunately, did not also call to mind the text of that Decision taken formerly, under the presidency of Metropolitan Philaret, anathematising the heresy of Ecumenism. Among others it contains such words as these: “Therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics, or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism: Anathema.” Indeed, by not investigating the matter seriously and by forgetting about this previously confirmed anathematising of the New Calendarists-Ecumenists (or perhaps not venturing to abrogate this resolution), our Sobor, as frightful as it may be to admit, has fallen under its own Anathema.”
Alas, the ROCOR Synod under Metropolitan Vitaly maintained this communion with the false “Synod in Resistance” from 1994 until very recently, when the decision of the ROCOR Synod to begin negotiations with the Moscow Patriarchate placed the ROCOR in a state far worse than that of the Cyprianites themselves! Thus in October of 2000, the ROCOR Synod officially published an Encyclical, in which it made known its desire to reunite with the Moscow Patriarchate. Thus the ecumenistic element within the ROCOR made its second great victory. The first ecumenistic victory was in 1974 when the ecumenistic-minded hierarchs in ROCOR, such as Anthony of Geneva, refused Metropolitan Philaret and his fellow-hierarchs to publish written statements that the new-calendarists and the Moscow Patriarchate are schismatics and void of grace. Anthony of Geneva threatened to cause a schism if any such decision was made. But since the remaining hierarchs complied with Anthony of Geneva’s wishes, to prevent a schism, Anthony and the ecumenistic element of the ROCOR proved to be victorious. Yet a schism was not at all prevented. For although Metropolitan Philaret and his fellow-hierarchs continued to maintain communion with the heretical-minded Anthony of Geneva, they nevertheless lost the communion they once shared with their truly Orthodox brothers. Thus the Genuine Orthodox Churches of Greece and Cyprus severed communion with the ROCOR in 1976, followed by a large portion of the Catacomb Church of Russia in 1978, and then by various parishes throughout the world, who began leaving the ROCOR to join the Genuine Orthodox Church, among them parishes in each of Switzerland, France, England, Florida, etc. Thus a schism was not prevented. It would have been more profitable if the ROCOR sided with the true Confessors, rather than abandoning them in order to maintain communion with those hierarchs within the ROCOR, such as Anthony of Geneva, who were ecumenists. However, this schism finally occurred from 2000 onwards, when the ecumenistic element within the ROCOR took strong hold of the Synod, and called for the very act which it had desired and planned from as early as 1974, namely, the rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate and the restoration of open ecclesiastical communion with World Orthodoxy.
After Metropolitan Vitaly’s forced retirement, and his almost immediate renunciation of the aforesaid retirement, he, together with Bishop Barnabas of Cannes, severed communion with the ecumenistic element within the ROCOR, (which had by then become mainstream), and formed the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile. This division was then sealed by the consecration of new bishops and new Chrism. Only at this point, after 30 years of struggle, was the Confessing element within the ROCOR released from the captivity of the ROCOR ecumenists and given a free voice. Thus in a formal Synodal Decision in 2002, Metropolitan Vitaly and his newly-established Synod of Bishops officially condemned the Cyprianite heresy, (which was in fact no different to the original heresy concocted in 1937 by Chrysostom, the former Bishop of Florina, and which was also held on an official scale by the ROCOR Synod itself—apart from the private and personal opinion of a few). The Synodal Decision (#15/01/M 16/29 December 2001) in which Cyprianism (i.e. Florinism) is condemned reads as follows:
“Metropolitan Cyprian and his Synod, while recognizing ecumenist world Orthodoxy to be heretical, nevertheless, considers it to be a part of the Church of Christ, thus contradicting the teaching and tradition of the Church, which clearly bears witness in Conciliar decrees and the writings of the Holy Fathers to the effect that heretics are fallen away from the Church... Calling for a walling-off from these ailing members, Metropolitan Cyprian, nonetheless, considers them to be within the Church. However, to permit membership in the Church outside an Orthodox confession of faith is by no means possible; hence, “those ailing in the faith” cannot be members of the Church, which is also confirmed by the teachings of the Holy Fathers. “Without a doubt,” says the venerable John Cassian the Roman, “he who does not confess the faith of the Church is outside the Church.” The same is confirmed also by Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople: “Members of the Church of Christ are wholly devoted to the truth, and those not wholly devoted to the truth are not members of the Church of Christ.”... Metropolitan Cyprian declares in his thesis that “the Orthodox have become divided into two parts: those who are ailing in the faith and those who are healthy...” (Ch. 3, p. 4), but then he immediately goes on to speak of “restoring to Orthodoxy” those ailing in the faith (Ch. 3, p. 5), whereby he clearly falls into a doctrinal contradiction, for how is it possible “to receive into Orthodoxy” those who already are Orthodox?!... The termination of the 1994 ROCOR Sobors’ rashly-established eucharistic communion with the Synod of the Resistors under the Presidency of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili on account of his unorthodox teaching concerning the Church (regarding ailing and healthy members of the Church in the realm of “the correct understanding of the faith”) and the recognition of the Mysteries of the new-calendarists as being valid.”
This is the first clear Confession of Faith to have ever been published by the ROCOR Synod. If only such a decision had been made in 1974, it would have prevented the severing of communion between the ROCOR and the Genuine Orthodox Church in 1976 and the Catacomb Church of Russia in 1978. But alas, the ROCOR itself at that time was guilty of the very heresy it has now condemned, and it not only remained in that heresy, but also plunged further into it by officially accepting the Cyprianite ecclesiology in 1994, and stating that it was always the opinion of the ROCOR Synod that the new-calendarists possessed sacramental grace.
However, now the ROCOR, in its Decision of 2001, and in the persons of Metropolitan Vitaly and his successors, has officially condemned the false ecclesiology of Florinism-Cyprianism and has embraced the True Confession of Faith which was held by the Genuine Orthodox Church since the very schism of 1924, and was the basis for the establishment of communion between the ROCOR and the Genuine Orthodox Churches in 1971. Therefore, it is the pastoral duty of all current rightly-confessing hierarchs of ROCOR succession, to bring an end to the severing of communion with the Genuine Orthodox Church which occurred in 1976 due to the ecclesiological ambiguity of the ROCOR Synod at that time. Therefore, these bishops must attempt by all means possible to return into communion with the true successor of that same Genuine Orthodox Church, which is currently represented by the rightly-confessing Local Genuine Orthodox Churches in Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Russia, Africa, and elsewhere, which, when summoned for a Pan-Orthodox Synod, are under the presidency of Metropolitan Kirikos.