Церковные ВѢХИ

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church. For salvation is the revelation of the way for everyone who believes in Christ's name. This revelation is to be found only in the Church. In the Church, as in the Body of Christ, in its theanthropic organism, the mystery of incarnation, the mystery of the "two natures," indissolubly united, is continually accomplished. -Fr. Georges Florovsky

ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΙΑ Ή ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ!

ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΙΑ Ή ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ!
§ 20. For our faith, brethren, is not of men nor by man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ, which the divine Apostles preached, the holy Ecumenical Councils confirmed, the greatest and wisest teachers of the world handed down in succession, and the shed blood of the holy martyrs ratified. Let us hold fast to the confession which we have received unadulterated from such men, turning away from every novelty as a suggestion of the devil. He that accepts a novelty reproaches with deficiency the preached Orthodox Faith. But that Faith has long ago been sealed in completeness, not to admit of diminution or increase, or any change whatever; and he who dares to do, or advise, or think of such a thing has already denied the faith of Christ, has already of his own accord been struck with an eternal anathema, for blaspheming the Holy Ghost as not having spoken fully in the Scriptures and through the Ecumenical Councils. This fearful anathema, brethren and sons beloved in Christ, we do not pronounce today, but our Savior first pronounced it (Matt. xii. 32): Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. St. Paul pronounced the same anathema (Gal. i. 6): I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. This same anathema the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the whole choir of God-serving fathers pronounced. All, therefore, innovating, either by heresy or schism, have voluntarily clothed themselves, according to the Psalm (cix. 18), ("with a curse as with a garment,") whether they be Popes, or Patriarchs, or Clergy, or Laity; nay, if any one, though an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Thus our wise fathers, obedient to the soul-saving words of St. Paul, were established firm and steadfast in the faith handed down unbrokenly to them, and preserved it unchanged and uncontaminate in the midst of so many heresies, and have delivered it to us pure and undefiled, as it came pure from the mouth of the first servants of the Word. Let us, too, thus wise, transmit it, pure as we have received it, to coming generations, altering nothing, that they may be, as we are, full of confidence, and with nothing to be ashamed of when speaking of the faith of their forefathers. - Encyclical of the Holy Eastern Patriarchs of 1848

За ВѢру Царя И Отечество

За ВѢру Царя И Отечество
«Кто еси мимо грядый о нас невѣдущиiй, Елицы здѣ естесмо положены сущи, Понеже нам страсть и смерть повѣлѣ молчати, Сей камень возопiетъ о насъ ти вѣщати, И за правду и вѣрность къ Монарсѣ нашу Страданiя и смерти испiймо чашу, Злуданьем Мазепы, всевѣчно правы, Посѣченны зоставше топоромъ во главы; Почиваемъ въ семъ мѣстѣ Матери Владычнѣ, Подающiя всѣмъ своимъ рабомъ животь вѣчный. Року 1708, мѣсяца iюля 15 дня, посѣчены средь Обозу войсковаго, за Бѣлою Церковiю на Борщаговцѣ и Ковшевомъ, благородный Василiй Кочубей, судiя генеральный; Iоаннъ Искра, полковникъ полтавскiй. Привезены же тѣла ихъ iюля 17 въ Кiевъ и того жъ дня въ обители святой Печерской на семъ мѣстѣ погребены».
Loading...

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

SiR Archbishop Chysostomos Responds to EP Episcopal Assembly

To: Exarchate, Clergy, and Faithful
From: Archbishop Chrysostomos

Re: First Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox
Hierarchs in North and Central America

Evlogia Kyriou. Gospod' blagoslovit. May God bless you.

Many of you know that there was a convocation of Orthodox Bishops at the Helmsley Park Lane Hotel in New York City last week, described, in a somewhat addled way, as the "First Episcopal Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs in North and Central America." Some of you have inquired of me about it.

This meeting (see the attached photograph) was convened by Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Needless to say, no Old Calendarist resisters, including the Hierarchs of our Synod in Resistance and its Sister Churches, were invited attend, whether as participants or observers.

The question, below, which gives me a platform from which to address the inquiries that I have received, was sent to me by a well-placed individual who teaches in an Orthodox seminary and who discussed the meeting with two Bishops of his acquaintance, both of whom were in attendance.

Most of the questioner's letter, containing unedifying material of no interest to anyone (gossip euphemistically passed on by those who discussed it as "information"), I have erased. (He repeated this gossip, incidentally, not in an insulting or accusatory way, but in order to express his own dismay at the abject level of discourse between the discussants in question.)

I have copied the questioner's more general reference to that material and his inquiry about my reaction to the assembly, as I said above, to provide me with an opportunity to comment on the assembly for those who have inquired about it and in an attempt to set it in the wider context of American Orthodoxy.



QUESTION:


...It was XXX and XXX who discussed you and your bishops personally with XXX, who said that your synod is made up of schismatics and is outside the church, along with the bishops of Metropolitan Agafangel. ...I was disgusted at the scuttlebutt about you and Metropolitan Kyprianos and your supposed religious vagaries before monasticism. ...This all showed a lot animosity and a desire to discredit you and Metropolitan Kyprianos. For example [examples deleted].... I'd be glad to set the record straight on a number of the these rumors if you want. They both know that I know the real facts. ...[Getting on], did you read Archbishop Demetrios's presentation to the gathering? What do you think of it?


ANSWER:


I do not address, beyond what I have said in the past, my private life before I became a monk or misrepresentations of, and fantasies about, it. All of this is irrelevant, and I let my Orthodox confession, the truth, and my monastic life speak for me. I have no interest in this sort of gossip, which is wholly inappropriate for men who represent the Church of Christ and which is, at least in the case of laymen, more properly answered by legal action, in my opinion. This self-serving nonsense has long been spread about me and Metropolitan Cyprian and is simply meant to try to discredit us personally, rather than address the valid and pertinent issues that we raise in our resistance.

As for the accusation that we and the clergy of and faithful of our Sister Churches are schismatics and outside the Church, the Blessed Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) once made an interesting observation about such statements with regard to Old Calendarists and resisters. (He was himself in the New Calendar Church at the time, I should stress.) If we are to be judged in such a way, so are the Fathers of the Church who stood for the principles that we defend and who, like us, severed communion with, and walled themselves off from, those whom they considered in error. Let the fact that we do not visit such compliments on those whom we believe to be in error speak for us, as well.

I did, indeed, read Archbishop Demetrios' presentation, which was clear and intelligent, as one would expect from such an erudite and dedicated Churchman, whom I in many ways greatly admire. However, I would take exception, despite his good intentions, with the manner in which unity and the pressing problems of the Church, today, were examined in his keynote address at this meeting. (I keep in mind, of course, that he was not expressing only his personal views but those of the Archdiocese and the Oecumenical Patriarchate, as well.)

At a time when belief, the daily practice of Orthodoxy (Orthopraxy), and adherence to the Canons which regulate our Faith and how we live as Christians are waning widely, one cannot help but be unimpressed by the preoccupation of the so-called canonical Bishops with matters of administrative prerogative, jurisdictional squabbles, and so on. Archbishop Demetrios admittedly acknowledged that these latter concerns could be set aside and considered in the future, and that unity of action and purpose were the matters of the moment, but such concerns surely the elephant in the room, I am sure.

Looking at that elephant, I might just note that a number of the Bishops attending the assembly were from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, from which we derive our Apostolic Succession and with which we were in full communion for a number of years. If technicalities of who is canonical and who is outside the Church are of such moment (the mere title of the meeting attests to this fact), might I ask whether the ROCA Bishops in attendance were re-Chrismated, re-ordained, and re-Consecrated in preparation for this meeting of the "canonical" Orthodox Bishops on this continent?

If this question seems out of line or absurd, it is not. Certainly, if our Bishops are schismatics and outside the Church, then these Bishops must have been of similar status with us when they Consecrated our Bishop and when we were in communion with them. Logically, something must have been done about their former assault on the canonicity of the other Bishops represented at the meeting. Moreover, there is the further complication posed by the fact that Bishop Auxentios and I, "schismatics and outside the Church," took part in the Consecration of one of the ROCA Bishops.

While my comments may seem a bit provocative or even cynical, they nonetheless highlight what I said about the artificial nature of the way in which concerns for unity and the problems of the Church are expressed in "official" Orthodoxy today. My questions, in point of fact, are very serious and apropos, if one is to approach matters of unity and administrative authority in their full dimensions, and not in some Procrustean manner wherein "canonical" is separated from the Canons and "unity" is a preconceived "covenience" established by common consent.

Beyond this perception, I also noted that Archbishop Demetrios himself admitted that many issues in the Church today that involve serious canonical and confessional issues (the Baptism of converts, the Ordination of non-Orthodox clergy [he refers, for example to questionable acceptance of Roman Catholic clergy by vesting in some jurisdictions], relations with the non-Orthodox, etc.) remain unresolved among the so-called canonical Orthodox, who find themselves more greatly preoccupied with administrative Canons than canonical directives that touch on these matters of ecclesiology, confession, and the practice of the Faith.

You can imagine that, being accused of schism and being outside the Church, we are not overly impressed by deliberations aimed at administrative primacy and which, when they do turn to the canonical problems of Faith and confession in Orthodoxy, do so in the context of preparing for an ecumenical synod that, if one carefully reads the agendum put forth for it over the years, aims at solving these problems by "reform." Thus, instead of restoring traditional standards, those involved in these deliberations aim at revising and overturning the Canons that regulate fasting, clerical dress, the remarriage of widowed clergy, prayer and worship with the non-Orthodox, and so on. They are fixed on the very same reforms that led to the "Living Church" in Russia, after the Bolshevik Revolution, and to the reform of the Church Calendar early last century.

I have already expressed my views with regard to the spectacle of responsible, mature Churchmen discussing, even if only in private and personally, street gossip of the kind that you mention: gossip which I have excised from this note for the purpose of responding to you and sharing my response with our clergy and faithful, a number of whom have asked about the nature of this assembly and why we were not invited.

I will set aside any further reactions (and I have some) and not comment on ecumenists who disallow words like "schismatic" and "outside the Church," except when applying it to those of their own religion who happen to oppose their ecumenical excesses!

2 comments:

  1. His Eminence finds agreement here in his appraisal of the future Istanbul led Ecumenist/Renovationist Episcopal Assembly of America.

    But I would add a word of caution to him. The esteemed Archbishop is more than welcome and encouraged in underscoring the Apostolic Succession of his Synod emanating from ROCOR. I find his appreciation of it and the canonical prerogatives of ROCOR to be edifying.

    In addressing this very appreciation for ROCOR's kheiritonial grace, I wish to underscore to the Archbishop the need to reevaluate the unsavory alliances he and his Synod have made and to truly respect this kheiritonial grace. His alliances are undermining his efforts and alienating potential allies, while potentially serving as the basis of the condemnation of his Synod and of himself.

    I speak of the CIA supported and directed (formerly "Orange") SERGIANIST Sobor of Mr. Pashkovsky. It would be good of the Archbishop to kindly receive the information that this political renegade, Pashkovsky, never received a canonical release from ROCOR, whereby he remained one of its clergy, even in stating his "resistence".

    Since the esteemed Archbishop is most salutary in accepting the established disciplinary prerogatives of ROCOR, it is incumbent him and his Synod to understand that Mr. Pashkovsky has been DEPOSED by this very same ROCOR, which established not only Mr. Pashkovsky's NOW DEFUNCT Apostolic Succession, but as the scholarly Archbishop has noted, that of his own Synod, the SiR.

    While the beloved Archbishop's Synod received a guarantee of autonomous and independent governance from the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR, Mr. Pashkovsky's renegade organization never did, nor did he even seek a blessing to go his own way and pursue an independent path--he did not receive the requisite dispensation from ROCOR to leave their Synod and act on his own but rather established himself as a rebellious VAGANTE. Furthermore, he specifically did act in rebellion to the ROCOR Synod and to the Russian local church in a most a haughty and schismatic way, attempting to separate the People of God from lawful hierarchs and presuming unlawfully for himself to arrogate the sees and canonical prerogatives of the Russian local church.

    Since the esteemed Archbishop underscores the canonical legitimacy and prerogatives of ROCOR, it would be good for him and his Synod to reflect on the facts that the ROCOR has DEPOSED Mr. Pashkovsky as an Orthodox cleric and deemed his "synod" AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, making it and its acts akin to those of Vagantes. ROCOR is fully justified, for Mr. Pashkovsky NEVER DEPARTED FROM THE RANKS OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF ROCOR. While in his "resistance," Pashkovsky has acted to not quell the divisions within the Russian church by insisting on conciliar resolution and fraternal reconciliation of erroneous teachings and practices, but by acting to institutionalize them and, by rebellion, have believers rise not against errors, but against the Russian local church itself and its Orthodox witness and Renewal. That is not lawful "resistance," but demoniac apostasy and rebellion, fuelled by hubritic SCHISMATIC pride.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Pashkovsky's lack of love in all his efforts and words should have been the principle warning sign to the beloved Archbishop and his esteemed Synod. I charitably remind the Beloved Archbishop, an esteemed teacher for me, that the Holy Apostle is clear in underscoring to us that even if we raise the dead and have not love, we are nothing, for we do not act in Christ Jesus, who is Love Incarnate.

    Thus, it is uncumbent upon the esteemed Archbishop and his Synod, who ever so cherish the episcopal kheiritonas received by their body from ROCOR, to respect ROCOR's disciplinary actions of would be confederates, who presume to attach themselves to the SiR and thereby DELEGITIMIZE THEM and their precious "resistance"/confessorship.

    The erudite Archbishop is well aware of the canonical penalties for concelebrating with deposed hierarchs, interfering into the affairs of another local church, and even those of participating in rebellion against lawful Bishops.

    Moreover, the Synod of the scholarly Archbishop is quick to affirm and ratify anathemas against sergianism, yet somehow seems to not have become cognizant of the fact that the unlawful assembly of Mr. Pashkovsky engages in just such heresy by receiving directives and working under the purview of a freemasonic, governmental organization, ie the CIA.

    This strange double standard of the KGB (which is now defunct) being "godless" while the CIA (estalbished through networks emanating from LUCIFERIAN freemasonic lodges-the very SAME organizations which disestablished the Anointed and LAWFUL sovereign of all the Russias in Revolution and ended the Symphonia of Church and state in Imperial Russia and plunged that Orthodox realm into the bloody cauldron of New Martyrdoms and Persecution and Godless Anti-Christian rule.) is somehow "salutary to Orthodoxy". Such degenerate folly is unworthy of the beloved Archbishop and his confessing Synod.

    Perhaps, the Synod in Resistance has in mind Soviet and Communist politics when it addresses sergianism, but that matters not, for the full definition of sergianism is voluntary cooption of an Orthodox body by a godless and anti-Christian government and cooperation with it in the persecution, subterfuge and destruction of ORTHODOX ecclesiastical institutions for the purposes of a given local church's (or ultimately the Church's) self-liquidation.

    While the MP in the past did use the mask of "canonicity" and "officialdom" when it was a sergianist organism (Sergianism of which it has MANY TIMES repented and now openly condemns as error), what renegade assemblies such as that of Mr. Pashkovsky do is use the veil of "resistance" to promulgate this accursed heresy in new forms.

    Political inclinations make poor arbiters of standard: so it is BEST for the SiR to rethink and reformulate its "alliances" while pondering the full meanings of anathemas and errors which assault Christ's Church today.

    In doing so and abandoning the company of renegade agents of godlessness and antichrist, who are directed by the agenda of agencies fully under the control of luciferian interests, the SiR will resecure its moral authority in its "resistance"/confessorship and avoid condemnation in future CONCILIAR resolution of just these very controversies which plague our Holy Church today.

    I am encouraged by the intellect and far-sightedness of the erudite Archbishop and his confessor Synod to rightly appraise and take the necessary steps in this regard to provide a CONSISTENT AND UNBIASED STANDARD OF "RESISTANCE," not only for their local church, the State Church of Greece, but also for the entire Oikumene. This would be something for which they should be commended.

    R M Malleev-Pokrovsky

    ReplyDelete