This article was taken from the ROCOR-MP website ROCOR Studies, and posted on Internet Sobor. I think it is safe to take materials from ROCOR Studies website after they have been reviewed and approved by our synod. Otherwise, do not trust ROCOR Studies, because it was created to help justify the ROCOR-MP union. If they have not censored or tampered with material (much that is no longer available to us), then they at least present it with a spin in favor of their fall into apostasy.
Author: Internet Cathedral. Date of publication: 07 September 2020 ... Category: History of the ROCOR .
"There can be no talk of joint ministry"
Correspondence between Metropolitans Philaret and Irenaeus
From the [ROCOR-MP] editor
This correspondence between the first hierarchs of the Russian Church Abroad and the Orthodox Church of America had a starting point in the expulsion of A.I. Solzhenitsyn from the USSR on March 29, 1974.
Knowing about. Alexander Schmemann on his religious program on Radio Liberty, Alexander Isaevich wrote to him in April and at the end of May they met in Zurich. As a result, A.I.Solzhenitsin's Letter to the Third All-Diaspora Council of the ROCOR, which took place on September 8-19, 1974, in the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, and a reply to this letter, from the ROCOR Re-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, appeared.
The appeal to the American Metropolia [see below] appeared as a result of words to Solzhenitsyn in a letter to the cathedral [synod?]. "And if structural unification is impossible in a short time, as I understand it, then with one whip, one manifesto of your Council, it is now possible to reject and call to cast aside the mutual hostility of the Churches, to declare the unrestrictedness of liturgical communion of Orthodox priests, if their Churches do not knowingly serve atheism." As well as the correspondence between the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Anastassy, with the First Hierarch of the Parzhian Exarchate, Metropolitan Vladimir in 1946-1949, did not lead to the unification of jurisdictions, just as this correspondence had no practical results.
However, it is valuable in that it expressed two approaches to the position of the Church in Russia. The ROCOR refused to recognize the tomos of autocephaly, granted on April 10, 1970 by the Moscow Patriarchate of the North American Metropolitan, expressing at the Council of Bishops in 1971 the point of view that not the Moscow Patriarchate, but the Catacomb Church is the mother of the Church for the ROCOR. The same idea is developed in his letters by Metropolitan Philaret, to whom the First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church of America, Metropolitan Irenaeus (Bekish), who, after evacuation from Poland, served as a "white" priest in the diocese of ROCOR in Germany (1944-1947), answers.
In the same year, 1965, as Metropolitan Philaret for the ROCOR, Archbishop Irenaeus was elected Metropolitan of the North American Metropolitanate. In his report to the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR (May 23-June 5, 1967), Metropolitan Philaret reported on two meetings with Metropolitan Irenaeus at the apartment of the ROCOR benefactor, Prince SS Beloselsky-Belozersky - as a result of which mutual understanding was reached on the issue of admitting clergymen without letters of leave, attitudes towards the Moscow Patriarchate and ecumenism 1
This correspondence is a return to an attempt at dialogue. If the letters of Metropolitan Philaret were written by him, then the letters of Metropolitan Irenaeus were written by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. They were published in San Francisco Russian Life in 1975. Ten years before this correspondence, the newly elected Metropolitan Filaret wrote to the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Ariadna Ivanovna Delyanich, “Of course, our Church Abroad cannot be the true Church at the same time, etc. The American Metropolis, especially after the latter did not recognize Fr. John of Kronstadt . The Church is a single spiritual organism, and such a manifestation is inconceivable in it that one part of it does not recognize what the other does not - this is understandable to a child. Therefore, if one of these churches is the True Church, then the other is not." 2
However, it is highly doubtful that Metropolitan Philaret drew practical conclusions from his rigid ecclesiology. Otherwise, questions arise. Was he in the true Church after the war, in Harbin in the bosom of the Moscow Patriarchate? Or in what status did his parent, Bishop Dmitry, who died in the USSR in 1947, passed away to the Lord? It is also obvious from this correspondence that Metropolitan Philaret recognizes the priesthood [his orders] of Metropolitan Irenaeus.
Deacon Andrey Psarev, [ROCOR-MP]
August 2020
[Duh that Metr. Philaret recognized Metr. Irenaeus' orders -- his ordination had been valid and he had not been defrocked. So ROCOR-MP says that today this is a reason to go into communion with the OCA? See how they think, or don't think, as the case may be.]
Appeal of the Third All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the American Metropolis
“By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).
We, members of the Third All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, headed by our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret, and the entire Council of Saints of the free part of the Russian Church, appeal to you, the children and grandchildren of those who, like us, came from the bosom our common Mother - the Russian Church. All of us, albeit in different ways, were touched by the same trouble: the collapse of the Russian state, which took place under the blows of atheism, and the loss of a sense of brotherhood. This misfortune, this victory of the dark principle not only scattered us across the face of foreign lands, but also separated and even embittered against each other.
But nothing lasts forever in this world. We have lived to a time when what many thought was invincible began to change. “Towards the height of the thirties,” writes A.I. Solzhenitsyn, - "it already seemed that not only the church service with bells had been expelled from Russia forever, but with the last strangulation and the secret whispering prayer” (AI Solzhenitsyn, letter to the Council). But now we see something different. A multitude of symptoms and directly startling testimonies that speak of the spiritual revival of our people assure us with the words of the Prophet: "The morning is approaching, but still the night" (Isa. 21:12). Isn't it time for us in this early morning hour of forgiveness and God's mercy to wake up from the sinful sleep of our destructive divisions and non-brotherhood? Isn't it time for us to remember that we are all children of the Russian Church, and, if not ourselves personally, then in the person of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, left its bosom, came out of the “land of the fathers”?
Do not rush to say: "They apparently forgot who they are writing to - after all, we are Americans and we do not care about their Russian problems!" Take your time, firstly, because the land of the fathers and the Russian Church have not become an empty sound for all of you. Secondly, because both for those who unconditionally consider everything connected with Russia to be nothing more than their ethnic past, and for them, since they are Christians, every minute the question of our common Heavenly Father may sound: "Where is your brother?" We will not be saved by any self-justification, and in our separation we equally cry: "Our Father!" We will have nowhere to go from the fatherly reproach according to the Gospel: "Rejoice befitting you <...> about your brother" (Luke 15:32).
Do not think that we are gripped by abstraction and soar in the sky, forgetting reality. No, we remember her and, first of all, we ourselves repent that, probably no less than you think about us, we think about you: "Could anything good be from Nazareth?" (John !:45). We are convinced that the existing division is a great misfortune allowed by God for our sins.
By this we do not want to simplify the differences that divide us, reducing the church conflict to the level of a simple quarrel. No, we feel more than bewilderment about many of your actions, and with great pain in our hearts, in the words of the one who was called the “conscience of Russia” in our homeland, we ask ourselves: “How is it - out of sympathy for the prisoners, instead of knock off their chains, put on the same on yourself? out of sympathy for the slaves to incline their necks under the yoke? "
If you said that these words do not apply to you at all, then we would be forced to ask: “What was going on in Russia before Protopresbyteries appeared in print. A. Schmemann on September 27, 1973? What happened before he called the statement of Patriarch Pimen in Geneva “a pitiful lie that no one else in the world believes anymore”?
Didn't you know until September 1973 that, starting with the Patriarch, everyone, good and bad, is in slavery? That any ecclesiastical act, including the nomination of a Patriarch pleasing to the oppressors, and the granting of autocephaly to the same extent, like a civil act, entirely depend on the atheist authorities? That “out of sympathy for those who lie in captivity, to support the same lie at large” (A. Solzhenitsyn) is a grave thoughtlessness, introducing devilish deception into the often naive Western world? The future church life can not be built on the acts of Patriarch Sergius and his followers, for “not their darkened calculations, but the Providence of God” (A. Solzhenitsyn) builds it.
But we do not want controversy at all. We seek peace and pray for peace. You and us, who are in the free world, need to build church life in unanimity and harmony, as it once was before from 1936-1946.
But believe me, we by no means consider ourselves infallible and from the bottom of our hearts we ask forgiveness from anyone whom we have unwittingly insulted. But even to the last gasp, we will stand as the Russian Orthodox Church, as the only free part of it, preserving everything that is holy and true that it had and that it commands its sons to keep. But at the same time, we want to call both ourselves and you by the power of “who loved us and gave Himself for us” to beg for the power to want to find a way out of the old sin of separation, to become us, who call and consider ourselves right-minded, on the path of those who do right before the eyes of God.
In a conversation with one of our priests, a great writer and of great courage, the Russian patriot A. I. Solzhenitsyn, gave the following prudent advice: “If you look only at the past that divides us, then we will always be bound by the logic of arguments. But it is enough to put our attention on the relevance of the future, how much will become more malleable, and others will disappear altogether. "
We extend a brotherly hand to you to begin your search for ways to change the sinful church division. No matter where we succeed in this, whether in cooperation, in the common cause of helping the captive Russian Church, or in complete reunification, everything will be better than the state in which we are now.
May the Lord, our One Shepherd, help everyone, and the Most Holy Theotokos in our deeds to be Orthodox: "Let us [еже] avoid evil and do good."
Chairman of the Council, Metropolitan Filaret,
September 1974
His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret and his flock
“Love is longsuffering, merciful, love does not envy,
love is not exalted, not proud, not rampant,
does not seek his own, does not get irritated, does not think evil,
does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth;
Covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, endures everything." (1 Cor. 13: 4-7).
"Everything will be better than the state in which we are now." With these closing words of your message to us, we want to begin our response. For in them we heard, with joy and gratitude to God, the desire to embark on the path of overcoming those divisions with which church life has long been poisoned and which bring a terrible and sinful temptation into the souls of believers. No matter how difficult this path may be, we believe that with the help of the grace of God, "always weak, healing and impoverished, replenishing," it is possible, and for our part we are ready to do everything in our power to restore the unity of faith and love between us. which is the joyous essence of the Church of Christ.
This holy initiation requires, however, first of all, that we be completely truthful and sincere with each other. It is one thing to disagree, even if deep, in understanding and assessing the ways of the Church, especially in the midst of that infinitely difficult situation in which we are all destined to live. But let's take a different matter - that simple, factual truth, which does not depend on any interpretations and the recognition of which is our first duty towards each other. We talk about this because we were sadly struck by the statement of your message, that we "bowed our heads under the yoke" and began "... out of compassion for those who lied in captivity, to support the same lie at large." After all, you cannot fail to know that in our Church, both before and after she received autocephaly, the voice of testimony of persecution against faith and the Church in Russia never ceased, the work of helping the persecuted did not stop, communication with all living forces of the suffering woman did not weaken Russian Church. You cannot but know this, for for this it is enough to familiarize yourself with the decrees of our Councils, Bishops' and All-American Councils, leaf through the official organ of our Church, listen to speeches - on the radio, in the press, etc. - our preachers, theologians and representatives. How and when exactly did we really sin by silence or inaction, betrayed our freedom, entered into any kind of deal with our conscience?
We are not addressing this question to you for polemics, but because in the rejection of any factual untruth, of unfounded accusations and insinuations, we see the first and necessary moral condition for the elimination of divisions to which you are calling and which we also wish with all our hearts. Because if there is even a grain of truth in the accusations that have been so often, openly and officially brought against us in recent years, what could we talk about, what to discuss, what to unite? It goes without saying that we apply this demand for truthfulness to ourselves. If there was a lie in our statements about you, point it out, and we will immediately and publicly correct it. So, let us cleanse ourselves and our conscience from all the unrighteousness that, like an inevitable and corrupted fruit, has grown in our divisions, and let us begin the holy work of healing the wounded body of the Church by enmity.
Alas, we cannot agree with that part of your message in which you portray us as people who, because they have become Americans, “do not care about Russian problems”. Yes, we are not part of the Russian Church. Moreover, in the canonical independence of the Orthodox Church in America, in its freedom from any dependence on the "overseas" Churches, in the acquisition of a permanent canonical basis for it, we see the crowning of the almost two hundred-year mission here of the Russian Church, the fulfillment of what else at the dawn of this century, the ever-memorable Patriarch Tikhon, then Archbishop of North America, called. Yes, in the existence in America of more than a dozen national "jurisdictions" we see a tragedy, a sinful reduction of the universal Truth of Orthodoxy to the level of a tribal religion, and we are sure that no matter how long and painful the process of overcoming this tragedy is, only the implementation of a single local and a free Church corresponds to the Orthodox faith, the Orthodox teaching about the Church and the entire Orthodox Tradition. Yes, we, as a gift from God, as a testimony of the power and truth of Orthodoxy, perceive the constant increase in the number of natural Americans among our episcopate, clergy and laity. But is there any contradiction between all that has been said and the interest in "Russian problems"? Is it necessary to formally be part of the Russian Church in order to sympathize with her? Is not the Russian Church itself, first of all, a part of the one, holy, apostolic Church, living by that law of love, according to which one member is in strife, all the others sympathize with him, is one rejoicing, everyone rejoices in him? And finally, what problems are we talking about? If these are political issues, then they have no place in the Church. If, as we are convinced, the “problems” of the Russian Church today are the essence of the problems of Christian conscience and truth, then they are not limited to “flesh and crown,” but lie ahead of the conscience of every Christian. And therefore, all of us, both those who are bloodily connected with Russia and those who do not have this connection, equally consider it our duty and vocation to that struggle between the light and darkness of godlessness, on which, we know, the future of everything depends. humanity.
We are convinced that the Church of Christ can nowhere and never build herself up against anything earthly, temporary and transient, or for him, for Her basis is only in eternal and unchanging faith, committed to us in teaching, in the church system and in an uninterrupted continuity of a blessed life. We are convinced that her true victory over this world, adulterous and sinful, is not accomplished on the paths of separation from universal unity, not in breaking off communion and not in opposing her as pure and free to the allegedly fallen and polluted, but in the constant feat of self-purification, love and brotherly assistance to each other. For always, at all times, “the power of God in weakness has been perfected,” always and everywhere the holiness and grace of the gift of God was given by unworthy hands, always and everywhere was the Church in struggle and exhaustion, strong and holy only by the overcoming grace of God.
We considered it our duty to say all this, but not for polemics and not in a spirit of accusation, but in order not to mislead either you or ourselves. But having said all this, we repeat what we started with: we gladly and lovingly accept your call to jointly seek ways to overcome the pernicious division. And we are convinced that the true beginning of this path should be unity in prayer, above all in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. In it will pour out into our hearts the love of Christ, alone capable of overcoming everything that divides us, in it the impossible by man will become possible for God. To that beginning - to unity in Christ, we call you, firmly believing that the Lord Himself will fulfill our unity.
Metropolitan Irenaeus,
October 31, 1974, New York
Determination of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on November 6/19, 1974
Heard: the address of Metropolitan Irenaeus "to His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret and his flock" dated October 31, 1974.
Resolved:
1. The Epistle of Metropolitan Irenaeus rightly points out that from the ranks of his Church there have repeatedly come out protests against communism and persecution of the Church in the USSR. These performances are commendable. The Council did not forget about this when it adopted the text of the appeal to Metropolitan Irenaeus and his flock. However, since then thought turned to the past, before moving on to the present, it was recalled with grief that the separation from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at the Cleveland Council took place in the name of the unification of the Metropolitanate with Moscow , which was not realized at that time. On the other hand, the acceptance of autocephaly from her meant that the Moscow Patriarchate is the legitimate head of the Russian Church,which the Church Abroad cannot in any way accept. It was taken as a confessionthat in such an important act, the Patriarchate could allegedly act freely, proceeding only from considerations of church benefits. But any support for this Soviet deception, which makes the Church an instrument of foreign communist politics, is a great temptation. He misleads those in the West who do not know the real origin and official position of the Moscow Patriarchate in relation to the atheistic government. It seemed to the Council that the acceptance of autocephaly from the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate was therefore a testimony to the world about its supposedly good quality and freedom, morally in many ways binding the recipients. In this sense, it, to some extent, serves as the yoke mentioned in the Epistle to the Council. The same importance is attached to the exchange of visits between the Patriarchate and the Church in America, as, for example, the trip of the delegation of St. Tikhonov Seminary in the USSR last year, headed by Fr. V. Borichevsky, etc. The Synod of Bishops would not like to mention such facts at the present time, but it is called upon by reproaches in the address of Metropolitan Irenaeus.
2. The Synod of Bishops notes with satisfaction the statement of Metropolitan Irenaeus about his and his flock's compassion for the suffering Russian Church. One cannot but appreciate any statement in defense of the suffering Russian Church. However, the Synod of Bishops that those who have separated themselves and believes no longer belong to the body of the suffering person cannot have the same experience with those who feel they belong to this body. For the separated, the problems of the Russian Church are no longer their own problems, but the problems of someone else, even if they are close and beloved. Against the background of the global misunderstanding of the sufferings of the Russian Church or indifference to them, which, alas, even among the Orthodox Churches,the statement of Metropolitan Irenaeus on behalf of the Church headed by him about compassion for her and his protests against persecution should be received with love and gratitude. And of course, he correctly points out that the problems of the Russian Church today are not of a political nature, but are problems of the struggle of darkness against light. Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. It therefore often descends within the bounds of purely communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life, since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, “Because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of heavenly wickedness” (Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.that the problems of the Russian Church now are not of a political nature, but are problems of the struggle of darkness against light. Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life, since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism,the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, “because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of heavenly wickedness” (Eph. 6 : 12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.that the problems of the Russian Church now are not of a political nature, but are problems of the struggle of darkness against light. Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life,since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, “because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of heavenly wickedness ”(Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.but are problems of the struggle of darkness against light. Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life,since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, “because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spirits of heavenly wickedness ”(Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.but are problems of the struggle of darkness against light. Unfortunately, the Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life,since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, "because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of high heavenly wickedness "(Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle. The Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, is trying to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life, since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul.However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, "because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of high heavenly wickedness "(Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.The Moscow Patriarchate, in principle, tries to unite these inconsistent regions of Christ and Belial. Therefore, it often descends within the bounds of a purely pro-communist politics. The Church should sanctify all aspects of life, since they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism,the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, "because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of high heavenly wickedness "(Eph. 6:12)...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.because they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, "because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of high heavenly wickedness "(Eph. 6:12) ...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.because they are not indifferent to the constitution of the Orthodox soul. However, denouncing the evil of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia dwells not on political, but on spiritual problems, "because our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against the spirits of high heavenly wickedness "(Eph. 6:12)...
Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.Our Church evaluates political phenomena from the point of view of their belonging to one side or the other in this battle indicated by the Holy Apostle.
3. Spiritual unity in prayers and sacraments is the completion of a united confession, to which love leads not only to one another, but also to the truth. The Synod of Bishops would consider it expedient for representatives of the two sides to meet for a preliminary exchange of views and find out in this way whether - and if so, to what extent - unity or cooperation between them is possible. The Synod of Bishops believes that if the views expressed in this definition on the essence of the struggle waged in the world and on the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in it are shared by Metropolitan Irenaeus and his collaborators, then a fundamental basis can be found for starting conversations between our representatives.
November 12/25, 1971, New York,
Genuine duly signed. True to the original:
Bishop Laurus, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops
His Eminence, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret
Your Eminence,
On behalf of my brothers-archpastors and on behalf of me personally, I must with complete frankness bring to your attention that the resolution of your Synod of November 19, 1974, sent to us as a response to our appeal of October 31, deeply grieved us.
It upset us first of all by the fact that it does not at all feel a real and unconditional desire to overcome what we consider to be the most important thing in our divisions: the absence of Eucharistic communion between us. Instead, you are again raising accusations against us that have long been refuted by word and life.
In your resolution, you subordinate church unity to our acceptance of your "views on the essence of the struggle waged in the world and the participation of the Moscow Patriarchate in it", your approach to the Russian Church, your assessment of our autocephaly, your understanding of the past and present. The fact of the matter, however, is that on all these issues there are deep and fundamental disagreements between us, which, of course, we cannot immediately resolve. In addition, in conscience, we must say that what worries us most is not this divergence of views and assessments with you, but the deeper and more tragic hopelessness of the path you have chosen, which led you to a separation from the body of the Russian Church back in the days of Patriarch Tikhon.and later to the actual separation from the entire Ecumenical Orthodox Church.
Nevertheless, in our appeal to you, we did not set any conditions. We did not put them because we are convinced, firstly, that our divisions, caused by the tragic turmoil of our era, do not justify the gap in and sacraments, and because, secondly, it is in the unity and sacraments that unite us with Christ and in Him - with each other, we see the only way to mutual understanding and reconciliation. For where, then, can we seek spiritual help, enlightenment of heart and mind, if not from the Lord, without whom “we cannot do nothing”?
The history of the Church and all Orthodox Tradition convince us that this path is correct. There have always been disagreements, disputes, and quests in the Church. At the beginning of this century, a whole galaxy of Russian hierarchs and theologians, headed by Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) denounced the synodal system as non-canonical, and the transformation of the Church into a state "department of the Orthodox confession" as destructive and sinful. But it never occurred to any of them to separate from the Russian Church. They sought the healing of the Church and her revival from within. For as long as the unity of faith and prayer-sacramental unity remain unbroken, as long as it is in this God-given unity, and not by the people given to her, that the members of the Church seek the healing of weaknesses and shortcomings ,the victories of God's grace over everything only human are invariably accomplished. Therefore, the Church has always considered the protection of her unity to be the most important of her business, and schism - the most destructive of all sins.
Therefore, we see the horror and sin of divisions abroad between different branches of the Russian Church not in differences of opinion, even deep ones (for, in the words of the Apostle, “there must be differences of opinion between you,” 1 Cor 11:19), but in that ease of breaks, excommunication and reprimands, which lead to the destruction of all discipline in the Church, force the clergy and laity to move from "jurisdiction" to "jurisdiction" for any reason, turn church life into a struggle of ideologies and trends, reduce it to the level of constant disputes, denunciations and demagogic pole newspapermics. Thank God, our Church is not guilty of issuing such truly blasphemous injunctions! How many people with horror and disgust are leaving the Church, for in these decades of strife, prohibitions and “straining the mosquito”,the transcendental Shrine of the Church is no longer visible, not perceptible for them!
There is only one way out of this: in a return to that basic unity, unity in Christ, which, we believe, is not violated by all these different thoughts, to the liberating and regenerating power and joy of joint prayer, in giving the Lord our human divisions. Any other path, any other beginning will in fact be a continuation of the old path and will only lead to the further exacerbation of our disagreements. Let us have to live for some time and arrange our church life in different ways, without imposing on each other an apparently impossible administrative unity. Even if we understand differently the path and tasks of the Church in America. Finally, let us also understand our participation in the struggle for the truth of Christ in the world and in the suffering country of Russia in different ways.Is it possible that all this is capable of violating our unity in Christ, "Whom we serve alone," even though in weakness, and in the weaknesses and inevitable human limitations?
We are not proposing anything impossible, no ceremonial ostentatious acts that would require preliminary resolution of some external, "protocol" issues. We propose only to refuse the prohibition to visit each other's temples, pray together and receive the Holy Sacraments together. And if this prohibition becomes unprecedented, then the joint discussion will begin in a completely different, new spirit.
With brotherly love in Christ Metropolitan Irenaeus
His Eminence, His Eminence Metropolitan Irenaeus
Your Eminence,
I received your letter and was reported to the Synod of Bishops.
With great chagrin, we could not help but notice his sharpened polemic. Much could be written to you in response to everything you said. However, the questions you have raised have already been explained more than once on various occasions, and we think, however, that your letter in itself clearly testifies to how little the ground has been prepared for the unity it speaks of.
It is clear that one of the main roots of our differences of opinion remains the question of the attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate, towards its property that AI Solzhenitsyn called "a life of lies." If you were to the end clearly expressed about her path, perhaps it would facilitate our relationship. Therefore, for now we remain with our proposal for preliminary meetings to clarify the question of how far our rapprochement and cooperation is possible now. The rest will be left to the development of mutual peacefulness and the action of God's grace, although from your letter it is clear that there is a difference of opinion between us on other issues.
January 18/31, 1975,
With brotherly love in Christ, Metropolitan Philaret
His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret
Your Eminence,
Your letter dated January 31 of this year. January clearly shows that you reject our proposal to restore first of all prayerful communion and thereby begin the elimination of church divisions. By rejecting it, you, however, place the responsibility for this on us: you call my letter to you "sharply polemical" and "in itself testifying to how little the ground has been prepared for unity." Meanwhile, my entire letter was reduced to an appeal and a proposal to start the business of rapprochement not with polemics, not with disputes, but with prayer and with the acquisition of God's grace-filled help to her. Let me remind you of my words: “Our divisions, caused by the tragic turmoil of our era, do not justify a break in and sacraments, and therefore <...>in unity and sacraments that unite us with Christ and in Him - with each other, we see the only way to mutual understanding and reconciliation ... There is only one way out <...>: in the return to that basic unity, unity in Christ, which, we believe, has not been violated by all these different thoughts, to the liberating and regenerating power and joy of joint prayer ... Any other way, any other beginning will in fact be a continuation of the old path and will only lead to a further exacerbation of our disagreements. "Any other way, any other beginning will in fact be a continuation of the old path and will only lead to a further exacerbation of our disagreements. "Any other way, any other beginning will in fact be a continuation of the old path and will only lead to a further exacerbation of our disagreements."
Your Eminence! Do you really, in all conscience, perceive these words as full of "acute polemic"? And if so, what will our conversations be about in this atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust? How can we condemn others for “living a lie” if, first of all, we do not restore the simple truth in ourselves and do not abandon crooked paths? And how can we finally come to this if not by prayer, by meeting each other in Christ?
In your initial appeal to us, we heard the determination to take a really new step, the desire to look for new ways. And to this, with complete sincerity and readiness, they responded with a two-fold proposal to begin with the healing of the most terrible and seductive of all wounds: the separation of brothers - by faith, by spirit and by blood - at the throne of God. There is no need for any "preliminary clarifications" for this holy work. On the contrary, only she, only this meeting in Christ, and thus in the unity of the universal Church, will take further steps along a new path, and not painfully trample all in the same hopeless impasse.
February 28, 1975,
With brotherly love in Christ, Metropolitan Irenaeus
His Eminence Metropolitan Irenaeus
Your Eminence!
Our newspaper correspondence has come to a standstill and there is no point in continuing it. But I consider it necessary to answer your last letter.
Appealing to my conscience, you cite an excerpt from your previous letter and ask: where do I see in it a “sharpened polemic”? In this excerpt - I do not see. But you haven't brought your entire letter, Your Eminence. It has completely different thoughts and expressions.
Stubbornly avoiding the main issue that divides us, you persistently call for prayer communication. Needless to say, it would be a great joy to resume such communication. But you can start with it when there are personal disagreements. In this case, the matter is clear and simple: peace - and we will serve and pray together. But in case of disagreements of a principled nature, according to the words of the Holy Church - “let us love each other, but with like-mindedness we confess” - a preliminary achievement of such like-mindedness is necessary. And only when it is achieved, the joy of such an achievement is crowned with joint prayer. Remember the historic meeting of hierarchs - Met. Eulogia, Met. Theophilus, Met. Anastasia and the bishop. Demetrius, which took place to discuss issues related specifically to church divisions,as in the present case. Then the conference hierarchs did not begin, and ended their meeting with joint ministry.
And in general, in the history of the Church, there has never been any joint ministry without unanimity. This is a purely ecumenical invention of our day. “Love”, understood by ecumenical wisdom, widely opens its "loving embrace" to everyone and all, but these embraces are ready to stifle true Orthodoxy to death, burying it in a heap of non-Orthodox wisdom. After all, it is not in vain that the Apostle of Love says that a person who speaks in the wrong about the truth should not be accepted into the house, or even welcomed, for the one who greets him participates in his evil deeds .. ...
The main question dividing us is the question of the Soviet hierarchy. The Church Abroad recognizes her as the legitimate and valid leadership of the suffering Church of Russia only when she resolutely rejects the shameful and terrible declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, leaves her pernicious path and takes the path of Church Truth, openly and fearlessly defending her. The shame must be washed away. In the meantime, there is no such thing - she is under the "omophorion" of the theomachy power, not daring to step without her "blessing", especially in her actions abroad. After all - and the child is clear!
Here I interrupt my letter to quote verbatim what Vladyka Archbishop Andrei Roklandsky said on this issue, who for a long time performed his pastoral ministry in Soviet Russia and knows well all the nightmares of Soviet reality. Vladyka said the following: “I remember one incident from the life of Blessed Xenia of Petersburg. She was especially popular in the merchant world. The merchants noticed that every visit of the Blessed One brought them good luck in trade.
Once in one trading place, merchants managed to get from a rich estate several different varieties of the best honey. There was honey and linden, and buckwheat, and also from other flowers and plants. Each had its own special taste and fragrance. And when the merchants mixed all these varieties in one barrel, they got such a fragrance and such a taste that could not even be dreamed of. Buyers took this honey in great demand, sparing no money. And suddenly Blessed Xenia appeared. “Don't take it, don't take it,” she shouted, “you can't eat this honey: it smells like dead meat.” “You're crazy, mother! Don't bother us! See what profit went. How can you prove that this honey cannot be eaten? .. " " And here I will prove it! "- Shouted the Blessed One, with all her strength she leaned on the barrel and ... knocked it over.While the honey flowed onto the pavement, people crowded around the barrel, but when all the honey flowed out, everyone cried out in horror and disgust: at the bottom of the barrel lay a huge, dead rat. Even those who bought this honey for a high price and carried it away in jars threw them away.
“Why did I remember this incident and I bring it up? - Vladyka Andrey continues. - I will answer with pleasure. The other day, one American who is interested in Orthodoxy and who has visited almost all Orthodox churches both in the Soviet Union and here in America, asked me: why I and a whole group of Russian Orthodox people do not participate in the reception of the Patriarchal delegation and, in general, seem to shy away from everything that is connected with church life in the Soviet Union, and even here, in America, are they shying away from those Orthodox groups that are somehow connected with the Patriarchate? What's the matter? Are the dogmas not the same, or the sacraments are different, or the worship is different? I thought and answered: no, that's not the point. And the faith is the same, and the services are the same. The Orthodox faith smells like good honey. But if you pour this honey into a barrel, at the bottom of which there will be a dead rat, would you like to taste this honey? He looked at me with horror: "Well, of course not!" “This is how we,” I answered him, “are shy of everything that is connected with communism. Communism is to us the same as a dead rat at the bottom of a barrel. And if you have filled this barrel to the very brim with the best, most fragrant honey ... - no, we do not want this honey. Honey in itself is beautiful, but it got cadaveric poison and stench. "My interlocutor silently nodded his head. He understood. And you?…" He understood. And you?… "He understood. And you?…"would you like to taste this honey? He looked at me with horror: "Well, of course not!" “This is how we,” I answered him, “are shy of everything that is connected with communism.
Figuratively and convincingly! ..
At the end of my letter, I, in turn, ask Your Eminence: do you, according to your bishop's conscience, consider the servants of the KGB, dressed in robes and hoods, as true spiritual leaders and leaders of the long-suffering Russian Church? Can't you see that at the bottom of that quasi-ecclesiastical Soviet organization with which you have linked yourself lies the dead rat of communism?
Or do you prefer to close your eyes and plug your ears so as not to see or hear, and dismiss the unsightly reality? ..
Of course, if this is the case, then any further negotiations on unification are superfluous, and there can be no question of joint service.
Metropolitan Filaret,
February 27 / March 12, 1975
His Eminence, Metropolitan Philaret
Your Eminence,
Having received your letter dated March 12 this year. I decided not to show it even to my fellow bishops, its content seemed so strange to me. I did not think that you would publish it, especially in the early days of the Holy Forty-days, when the Church calls us to self-absorption and repentance. It was my intention to reply to you in a private, unpublished letter, in which I would share with you my perplexities. Since, however, you published your letter, my conscience does not allow me - despite my extreme reluctance to darken these holy days with painful polemics - to leave unanswered what I cannot help but see a deep distortion of our very faith.This is the image of a dead rat in a barrel of honey with which you explain your attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate and from which you conclude that “any further negotiations on unification are unnecessary, and joint ministry is out of the question."
Your Eminence! Don't you realize, don't you feel, what really terrible conclusions suggest themselves from this story, which you find "figurative and convincing"? And if it were not for honey, but St. Miro was in a barrel desecrated by a dead rat, would blessed Xenia have poured it on the ground too? After all, this is precisely the conclusion that your comparison leads, and you yourself make it. Whereas the primordial faith, the primordial experience of the Church consists in the fact that no matter how sinful hands the Sacraments are performed (and who, in the eyes of God, are the hands clean and worthy to perform them?), No matter how sinful, unclean, and even fallen the external, the human "shell" of the Church, at the bottom of the Chalice, believers find the Most Pure Body and the Honest Blood of Christ.And when an unworthy bishop brings out the Cup with his defiled hands, does this diminish its sanctuary, its strength?
This is where the essence of our divergence and attitude towards the long-suffering Russian Church is. You look at the hands holding the Chalice and are horrified at their impurity. We, I dare to think, together with the overwhelming majority of believers in Russia, gaze at the Chalice and the Holy Cross, which are lifted with these hands over the tortured country, and from them - from their Divine light and invincible power, and not from the hands that hold them - tea of salvation, enlightenment and rebirth.
And if we are commanded to expose every lie, from whose mouth it may come, to testify about the persecuted, to help the suffering - and we have never retreated from this reproof, nor from testimony, then may God save us from the merciless and Pharisaic judgment, we will not belonging, for "Vengeance is mine and I will repay," says the Lord.
With great sorrow and pain I am writing these lines to you. For your letter puts an end to the hope that was lukewarm in us that the time had come for our hearts to soften. No, apparently it hasn't come. But my conscience and my fellow bishops are clear. For we, with complete sincerity and without second thoughts, have offered you that way of overcoming our division, which you want to compare with “ecumenism” - as if we were not brothers in the same faith, children of the same Church! I want to believe that this is not your last word and that sooner or later that love will triumph in all of us - not ours, but Christ's - which “covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything, endures everything” (1 Cor. 13 : 7) ...
Irenaeus, Archbishop of New York, Metropolitan of All America and Canada
Source: Yearbook of the Orthodox Church in America
Footnotes
- Minutes 15, Archive of the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR in New York. ↩
- SDepartment of Special Collections, Stanford University Libraries. Grabbe Collection. M. 964. Box 1. Folder: Letters of Metropolitan Philaret ↩
Tags: rptsz , pca , metropolitan filaret
# RE: Metropolitan Filaret: On concelebrating with the OCA - Metropolitan Agafangel 09/07/2020 16:21
Two opposite approaches - no-compromise and compromise. Which of the two is the way of Christ? In my opinion, the answer is clear and does not even need justification. Saint Father Philaret, pray to God for us!
____________________
related manuscripts: Two separate studies, both independent and impartial
1. https://www.academia.edu/19643413/ST._PHILARET_OF_NEW_YORK_AND_T HE_HERESY_OF_ECUMENISM
