A Letter from Archimandrite Alexis to
his Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and
all faithful children of the ROCA, 2003
[I don't know the exact date of this
letter - the editor]
Dear-in-Christ, Archpastors, Fathers and Brethren,
I ask your Archpastoral and pastoral blessings and prayers.
Many of our people have urged me to write this letter as they feel that
their voice will not be heard at the All-Diaspora Clergy Conference,
held in Nyack next week. At the time of writing the representative
appointed to attend the conference from England has not canvassed our
views and in general he has very little contact with the two monastic
communities and our English-language missions.
I can only define our people, as those who look to Saint Edward
Brotherhood for some kind of leadership, the parishioners here and at
the Convent of the Annunciation in London, those in the other missions
within the English-language deanery, and those who correspond with us,
and
increasingly so those who contact us by e-mail.
The visit of our ruling hierarch, His Grace Archbishop Mark, to London
in October opened up the subject of the possible rapprochement between
the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate. Nowadays
people have much freer access to information through internet reports
and lists, and so the question in the last few weeks has come very much
to the fore.
In these exchanges I have only found one person who seems wholly
enthusiastic about developments. Many others have various misgivings and
feel disquiet in various ways, and I would like to put these matters
before you, so that you are as fully informed of the situation as
possible. I shall not be able to do this with any great wisdom or
learning, and may have misinterpreted various events or positions, but I
ask you to bear with this, that our voice might be heard.
Having mentioned the one person who enthusiastically endorses the idea
of a union, I should also say that I have only come across one or two
people who believe that any approach to Moscow on the part of our
hierarchs is essentially and fundamentally wrong.
In the main this letter reiterates what I have already addressed to
Archbishop Mark, and which he has assured me "will certainly help" him
"when participating in the conference," although I have expanded several
thoughts. As in my letter to the Archbishop, I think it may be useful if
I list under various headings some of the things which are troubling
people:-
A) Timing. This seems to come highest on everyone's list of worries.
They have the impression that we are rushing towards an agreement, and
feel strongly that we should be taking time, testing every step as we
go. They fear that the union seems likely to be agreed within months,
whereas they would feel happier if the time scale extended over several
years or even a decade, for reasons that I hope will become clearer in
the items below.
B) Fundamental Issues. They feel that the two fundamental issues
are
the
Sergianist past and present of the Patriarchate, and its espousal of
Ecumenism, and they hope that these will be wholly renounced and
expunged from the life of the Patriarchal Church before we enter into
communion with Moscow. From various statements from Moscow spokesmen it
seems that rather than renouncing the legacy of Metropolitan Sergius, it
is being lauded and he is seen now as something of a hero, whose
compromises "saved" the Russian Church. Many have the impression that
the present emphasis has been to gloss over these issues and to
concentrate on administrative matters pertaining to the status quo after
the union.
C) Study of our Past History. It is felt that before we
proceed far
along the path to any union, a thorough study should be made of the
Synod's past position, so that we do not make some kind of unfortunate
u-turn on a matter of principle. For instance, when Patriarchs Sergius,
Aleksii I, Pimen and the present Patriarch were "elected," our Hierarchs
issued statements saying that they considered these elections (in that
they were not free) out of order. If this is so, do we not have to
somehow accept the legitimacy of the present Patriarch, and on what
grounds can we do so?
D) Study of the Present State of the Patriarchate: This is
also an
imperative. It is obviously true that the Soviet state has fallen, but
it is by no means clear that the Moscow Patriarchate now operates free
of state or government interferance. According to many commentators, the
present socio-political situation in Russia is even more deleterious
than it was under the Soviets, and it appears that the Church is deeply
involved in many aspects of what seems to be a "Gangster State" in a way
that is less excusable than its subservience to the Soviets, which after
all was a totalitarian tyranny.
E) Putin. Putin's r?le in the present process has also
caused
widespread
disquiet. One appreciates that perhaps he was only a catalyst for
contact, and no one has any wish to decry his personal piety or
adherence to Orthodoxy, but it does appear that his "zeal" is not always
according to knowledge. Soon after meeting our hierarchs, it is reported
that he went to Rome and proposed some kind of rapprochement between
Rome and Moscow. Further, his interest at the best seemed to be to
support the Russian state. This aim might be laudable and something we
would all like to contribute to, but it is not the purpose of the
Church, which is to save souls. It appears that his imput is itself a
continuation of the Sergianist tradition: that the "reunion of the
churches" is primarily to serve a socio-political purpose. Interestingly
enough in this regard, parishioners from the Patriarchal Cathedral
Parish in Ennismore Gardens, London, contacted me, and said that they
would rejoice to witness the re-union of the two churches, but also felt
some disquiet over the present moves, and that it seemed to them to be
politically motivated and something of a "fix." They speak much more
boldly of the perceived political motivation behind the present moves
from the Moscow point of view, than any I have heard from our side. One,
a Russian who spends much of his time in Moscow, when visiting us,
declared, "Obviously, Putin wants this, and has leaned on the
Patriarch!" Such is their trust in the freedom of the Patriarchal
administration.
F) ROCOR in Russia. In the early nineties or thereabouts, our Synod
began to offer pastoral care to the faithful in Russia, who in
conscience could not remain within the Moscow Patriarchate; we provided
them with a hierarchy and pastors. In many ways, in retrospect, it seems
that this development was not well nourished and supported, and, as we
all know, various schisms not unlike those among the Greek Old
Calendarists, have arisen. But there remain people in Russia, a number
have contacted us, who are still loyal to the Church Abroad for reasons
of conscience. A speedy or improper union with Moscow, would betray
their faithfulness and loyalty.
G) Our Sister Churches. Also after the visit of Archbishop Mark
to the
Monastery of Sts Cyprian and Justina at Fili in the same decade, our
Church entered into a special relationship of Sister Church with the
Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, that of Metropolitan Vlasie in Romania
and with Bishop Fotii's diocese in Bulgaria. Here people are disquieted
that this special relationship is also being betrayed. We have heard
nothing of any discussions with the hierarchs of these Sister Churches
about a move which will assuredly greatly change our relationship with
them. I think it was Khomiakov who characterised one of the greatest
evils of the schism of Rome from Orthodoxy in the eleventh century as a
lack of brotherly love because they acted unilaterally and without
consulting their Sister Churches in the East. It now appears that ROCA
is following a similar course with regard to her professed Sister
Churches in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria.
H) The Proposed Autonomy. This has given rise to disquiet
at various
levels. Some see it as a useful temporary arrangement to ease the way to
full unity, if such a unity can be achieved in a right way without
falsehood and compromise of principles. However, several people have
expressed the thought that it seems to be the primary concern of our
hierarchs and that it is being promoted only so that they can safeguard
their own positions and prerogatives. In Britain, for instance, it would
make our situation particularly difficult, and even more so for those of
us who are not of Russian extraction and who do not follow Russian
liturgical practices. What would be the point of our being under a
Bishop in Germany, if it were perfectly right and proper to be in full
communion with the Moscow Patriarchate who have two hierarchs in this
country, and the first language of whose ruling hierarch here is
English? (But more of the British situation later).
J) Global Orthodoxy. Entering into communion with Moscow would
put us
in
unhindered and full communion with "Global Orthodoxy" and with those
ecumenist jurisdictions such as Constantinople and Antioch (which,
Antioch, is de facto in communion with the Monophysites, and in which,
as we heard from one of their priests two weeks ago, they are permitted
to offer the Holy Msyerties to Roman Catholics). When he spoke to us in
October, His Grace Archbishop Mark expressed the view that each rector
could refuse to concelebrate with or offer the Mysteries to clergymen,
whose position he found uncertain. But this seems on reflection to be
untenable, and puts us in the realm of having to make personal
judgments. I remember that when I was sent to England in 1977, I was
told by the then Protopresbyter George Grabbe, and I assumed this was
with Synodal authority, that I should not concelebrate with any non-ROCA
clergy, but was to explain that this was not a reflection on the
Orthodoxy of the other jurisdictions but only a pastoral matter. Fr
Milenko Zebic of the Serbian Church then wanted to come and concelebrate
and I explained what I had been told. He was deeply upset and reported
the matter to the Serbian Synod who complained to our Synod, and, as
Secretary at that time, Fr George himself wrote rebuking me for
following the very course he had enjoined upon me! This was simply one
instance, and with regard only to the Serbian Church. What opportuities
for misunderstanding would open up if "technically" we were in communion
with Global Orthodoxy? It would leave our church in a position not
unlike that of a Protestant sect which existed in this country until a
generation or so ago when it amalgamated with another similar group.
This sect called themselves Congregationalists, because each local
congregation decided its own policy measures. The hierarchical nature of
our church would dissolve.
K) ROCA's present position lost. It has been put to me that ROCA
has
been
respected for decades - a respect which seems to have lapsed somewhat
under the Metropolitanate of Met. Vitaly, when her position often seemed
unclear or vasillating, - for her firm traditonalist stance which
avoided
extremism. This respect was accorded us even by those who were in some
ways our enemies, and it appears that it greatly heartened numbers of
the faithful in Russia, who dismayed by their own corrupt Church
administration, could look to the Synod as a beacon. Presumably it was
for this reason that people in Russia looked to the Synod for pastoral
care as soon as, with the weakening of the Soviet tyranny, this
opportunity was opened up to them. If we are subsumed into the
Patriarchate that position will be lost, even the "Autonomy" will mean
that our position is
compromised beyond repair.
L) Central Ground. Over the years ROCA has also seemed to
maintain a
perillously difficult central ground, striving to remain faithful to the
teachings of the Fathers, but being moderate and accommodating to the
weaknesses and difficulties of others. She has thus avoided the
extremism and, indeed, the fanaticism of many of the "Old Calendarist"
groups and their sectarian spirit, and the laissez-faire attitude of the
more "liberal" jurisdictions with regard to the patristic tradition. If
she enters precipitiously into union with a Moscow Patriarchate which
has not set her course aright in this regard, a precious path of
moderate
traditonalism within the "Orthodox world" will be lost.
M) Glorifications. Some have raised the question of the
gloifications
of
the New Martyrs and other Saints. The Patriarchate has blocked the
glorification of those New Martyrs who opposed Metropolitan Sergius'
policy (a witness to their continuing Sergianism?), whereas the Church
Abroad glorifies these Saints. Further Moscow seems of late to have
canonised a series of saints, about some of whom it does not seem
fanatical to have reservations.
N) The situation in Britain. The above points have all been general, but
there are a number of points which perhaps pertain only to the situation
in Britain. Joining with Moscow, with or without autonomy, would put us
in full communion with the Sourozh Diocese, which in many ways is
completely different from other eparchies of the Patriarchate. It is to
all intents and purposes the creation of the late Metropolitan Antony
(Bloom) and thus reflects many of his eccentricities. Its character is
essentially Evlogian rather than Moscovite; there is a strong
anti-monastic bias among the majority of its clergy and people; feminism
in various shades is prominent among its intellectuals and Met. Antony
even came close to endorsing the acceptance of women priests; many of
the clery have impediments to ordination (it was often said this was how
the Metropolitan held their "loyalty"); it is ecumenist broadly and
deeply in a way that the (New Calendarist) Greek Archdiocese in this
country is not; and in general it reflects the most "liberal" trends
within "Orthodoxy." Most of the Moscow parishes and missions in this
country operate on the New Calendar. In one parish, at least, the Holy
Mysteries are regularly given to Roman Catholics who "wish to become
Orthodox." Even if all other things were equal as regards the
Patriarchate as a whole, one would not want to be in full communion with
Sourozh. Visiting clergy from Russia (MP) have often told us that they
see it as something like the "Living Church".
P) Our People. Because ROCA's presence in this country has been
weak
for
decades - (In Archbishop Nikodem's (+ 1976) declining years, the
presence naturally weakened. Immediately after his repose there were
several changes of administration. I believe that Bishop Constantine's
tenure here did not give people confidence in ROCA, and although
Archbishop Mark has done much for the ROCA presence in the eighteen
years he has been our ruling hierarch, he has of necessity been an
absent landlord, and there has been no spokesman for our church here) -
because of this, many of the people who now belong to our church have
come to us from other
jurisdictions, only with time and effort seeing the purpose of ROCA's
position. In our own congregation in Brookwood, a number of the people
first joined the Patriarchate including three of our monks. They joined
us not because of better opportunities, but because they believed that
ROCA's course was true and that of the Patriarchate and of Sourozh off
course. They have grave misgivings about any hasty "reconciliation."
Furthermore, as a community, we have grown, and have been loyal to ROCA,
even though as individuals and as a community we have not always been
welcome or
supported, even though attempts have been made to destroy us by people
(even clergymen) within ROCA, and even though in any one of the
"official" jurisdictions we would probably have been helped and
supported both financially and morally to a much greater extent. We have
done so because, even though this left us within a tiny minority of the
Orthodox, among people who did not accept us - (even this week people
from the Russian language parish who wanted to make a pilgrimage to our
brotherhood tell us that they were forbidden to do so on a Sunday), -
among people who do not understand us, we believed ROCA's course to be
true and worth suffering for. Perhaps as a result of faint-heartenedness
we feel now that perhaps that struggle was in vain.
I hope that putting these disquiets before you, does not hurt or offend
anyone. I felt it was imperative to write as we feel it is important
that these disquiets come to the attention of Your Graces and the other
clergymen and of the members of the Conference meeting next week in
Nyack.
I ask your holy prayers and blessings, and that you attempt to set
hearts at rest.
Your unworthy son in Christ Jesus,
the sinful monk and unworthy priest,
Archimandrite Alexis
Saint Edward Brotherhood,
Brookwood, England