The conciliar decrees on the matter of the Russian
bishops that have come to me cannot fail to elicit perplexity in all
those who have any acquaintance at all with the canons of the Russian
Orthodox Church.
The very fact that Bishops Theodore and Agathangelus
were summoned, without the slightest qualifications, to a session of the
Synod witnesses to the recognition of their hierarchical consecrations.
This is especially obvious if we remember the joyful declarations of
the President of the Council [in Lesna, in December, 1994] concerning
the decrees that had previously been accepted opening the way to a
peaceful resolution of all the problems of the Church Administration in
Russia. Bishops Theodore and Agathangelus came to the session of the
Synod on the basis of precisely this understanding of their status.
However, completely unexpectedly for us, the Synod raised the question,
not even of whether their episcopate should be doubted, but of banning
them from serving with the threat of defrocking five out of the seven
Russian Bishops, which, if the Bishops from Russia had entered the ranks
of the Church Abroad should have been carried out in the definite legal
procedure laid out in the Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad. But we should not forget that one of the especially important
legal principles of the above-mentioned Statute was that all its rules
had in mind only the affairs of the Church Abroad, but by no means the
affairs of the Church in Russia. In the whole Statute there is not one
word about entrusting the Hierarchical Synod or its President with
authority over the Church in Russia. Of course, this does not exclude
help for the Church in Russia. However, there is a great difference
between help and jurisdiction.
If we turn to the decree of his Holiness Patriarch
Tikhon of November 7/20, 1920, there hierarchs are allowed to render
help in the forming of a temporary Administration in Russia, but not to
assume for themselves ecclesiastical authority over the whole of Russia.
It was this kind of help that the Church Abroad rendered when she
consecrated Bishops for Russia, because of the communists’ annihilation
of the whole lawful Russian hierarchy. That was enough for a beginning.
When local parishes began to appear, together with
local legislation concerning them, a series of completely new questions
arose. With the growth in the number of parishes in the conditions of
competition with the Moscow Patriarchate that had betrayed the truth,
problems began to arise that were not always comprehensible for the
[bishops] abroad. The administration abroad, not being sufficiently
acquainted with all the aspects of Church life in Russia, as often as
not was silent, but from time to time took upon itself the labour of
issuing decrees for the Church in Russia. Besides this, the Synod
Abroad, submitting to the promptings of conscious provocateurs, burned
with distrust for the Russian Bishops, while at the same time having no
other candidates for archpastoral service. Hence a series of mistakes,
and as a result, with the aid of the enemies of the Church, the
relations between the Russian hierarchy and the Hierarchical Synod
became extremely complicated.
Finally, we see the Resolution of the Synod dated
February 9.22 of this year, which simply abolishes the missionary gains
in Russia, handing over all the open.. parishes that have not taken part
in the missionary work to the hierarchy, and even to Vladyka
Metropolitan, who has not once been in Russia.
Glory to God, our Russian Bishops remain faithful to
the principles of the preservation of Orthodoxy that have guided them in
their missionary work. If our Bishops abroad also preserve faithfulness
to these principles, then the two parts of the Russian Church can again
be united. The erroneous bans on Archbishops Lazarus and Valentine and
their vicars cannot be carried out, for they were issued in violation of
all the canons of the Holy Orthodox Church and her holy Canons,
including the Statute on the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
No hierarch who understands his responsibility can
take part in the dissolution of the Church discipline that has been
formed in the course of past years, substituting anarchy for the order
ordained for the regeneration of the Russian Church by the Holy
Patriarch Tikhon.
February 20 / March 4, 1995.
No comments:
Post a Comment