Again Agathangelite Confusion

Happy Thanksgiving to all in the USA and in American houses, embassies, bases and possessions throughout the world!

+

I feel very uncomfortable with the various Russian dissident groups. Many times, the impression they leave is of people who intentionally wish to shock and disparage simply to get attention and cause dissensions/schisms. Other times, they latch on to a ROCOR mythology of the "past" and preach a "continuing ROCOR" russophobia for today. Having been a Tikhonite almost all of my adult existence and a one time advocate of ROCOR "dissidency," I have to admit that I do have a fundamental "former" experience both with the "old ROCOR" and with the "Filaretovtsy," along with those who have aligned themselves with a "Cyprianite" or "classical Florinite" orientation today.

Truth be told, for a short time, I even had a modified "Vitalyite" orientation and a more rigourist view of ecclesiology. I can recall the paroxysms of disdain which welled up inside me every time a "sergianist hierarch" was mentioned (or-God forbid-commemorated!). I was uncomfortable with MP institutions and even their appreciation by people as a "ruse used by the godless" to "deceive," the MP being a body whose authenticity was "dubious at best."

Then I witnessed and experienced +Vitaly's blessings of ROCOR monks to join EP monasteries, his quiet "cooperation" with EP "people" and their agenda, his advocacy for commemoration of the EP to the Brotherhood of St. Elias Skete, then his not so tempered blame game of them for their "intransigence." (Don't get me wrong--when one learns the "other side," things like this or personages like Brother Jose become complicated considerations). I saw that +Vitaly very much enjoyed even the most liberal of Greek New Calendarist clergy or the most ecumenistic of Serbian churchman. So the hypocrisy and "politikanstvo" of Vitalyism grew cold; while the excesses of his "assistant" at Synod with her Tuchkov-esque "influence" nailed that coffin shut.

Then I asked myself a fundamental question: Could +Vitaly, who walked in the shadows of the Grabbes and shared their inconsistent "zealotries" (and their penchants and corruptions) only eventually to "retire" them to "remove rivals," be really ignored for recognizing the offices of Greek New Calendarists, very ecumenist Serbs, and others, all the while declaring that he was not in Communion with them, that the charisma of their local churches was in doubt?! Could his hatred of "Party members in cassocks" in the "Stalinist organism" be taken seriously when he openly worked with freemasons in cassocks and freemasonic governments (when they took him seriously) to advance his political agenda and their open hatred of ALL things Russian (including and especially OLD IMPERIAL RUSSIA)?

What cemented my reorientation away from this type of thinking were other people he surrounded himself with. One of those fellows (whose divorce and later "episcopacy" he advocated) was known to savour memories of his service in the US Army in West Berlin during the Cold War, where night time rifle shots would be taken to "murder the Reds," how he celebrated one evening where as a sentry, he tossed a grenade over the fence and had it fall at the feet of his Soviet counterpart, where that "Bolshevik sonofabitch was ripped apart when it detonated" and how he enjoyed "sending Communist scum like him to hell." To this day, when he gets drunk, he reminisces, savoring his act of "White justice."

The only way a Red Army soldier of that period differed from me and members of my family was that his family was in the Soviet Union while mine had escaped. Otherwise in culture, language, temperament and, YES, religion he was the SAME PERSON AS I (or any son or daughter of an immigrant) is. He had the SAME TYPE OF RUSSIAN MOTHER AND FATHER, who wept bitter tears that their son had been murdered for simply serving his country to keep them safe. I would wager that this Vitalyite murdered an Orthodox Christian who could have even been related to him.

That is not for me. That path and attitude IS NOT OF CHRIST. It is not a Russian mentalite and is really an enemy of every local Orthodoxy.

This is the attitude especially of the Agathangelites and increasingly even of people who should KNOW BETTER like certain Bishops of the SiR. This celebrated and unapologetic russophobia is why no sane Russian Orthodox Christian should take them seriously. They are advocates not only of hating Russia but openly stand for destroying the Russian church and coordinate their efforts in doing so with not only "other ROCOR fragments," but with "Ukrainian" autocephalists and Renovationist heretics like the DEPOSED M. A. Denisenko. They relish Uniate takeovers by coercion of and violence in churches in Galicia (Red Russia), Carpatho Russia, and Volhynia (Black Russia), all over and everywhere. They support freemasonic Orange governments nationalizing and attempting to take over Russian holy places like the Kiev Caves and Pochaev Lavras. They celebrate the creation of new Uniate dioceses in Little Russia in places where they HAVE BEEN FORBIDDEN SINCE HETMAN KHMELNITSKY reunited Little Russia with Rus', since Hetman Vygovsky signed the Treaty of Hadiach, ABOLISHING THE BREST UNION AND ORDERING ALL UNIATES OFF LITTLE RUSSIAN AND RUSIN TERRITORIES. No, the Agathangelites celebrate the return of the heirs of Josaphat Kuntsevich and Vasili Lipkovsky, savouring a demoniac satisfaction that Russian Orthodox monuments like the Cossack Graves are "no longer in Moscow's Bolshevik hands."

This might be at times politically advantageous to them, but it is by no means faithful to the historical Russian church and in no wise Orthodox. It is a patent renunciation of Russian Orthodoxy OF ANY VARIETY. Their sites celebrate such vile blogs as "La Russophobe" and in the same breath try to drape themselves in the legacies of people like Metropolitan Philaret, St. John of San Francisco, Fr. Rostislav Gan or Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) of Platina.

Would any such people EVER be associated with a blog devoted to open RUSSOPHOBIA AND HATRED OF RUSSIA, HER HISTORY, PEOPLE, THEIR CULTURE, AND RELIGION?!

But people like Fr. Nikita GrigorieV and the former Father Igor Hrebinka encourage this revisionism of hate. There is no Russian Orthodoxy they accept, save one where they assume control of Russia's Orthodox cathedras in their spiritually pornographic fantasies and destroy Russia's Orthodox dioceses and open the floodgates to their allies like Mr. Denisenko's or Cardinal Hussar's RENOVATIONIST AND HERETICAL UKRAINIAN NEO NAZIs and RESURGENT UNIATES. They gladly serve to destroy Russia and her church, to cut Holy Rus' into pieces, celebrating every setback and advocating the cause of every sectarian to undermine the Church of Rus' planted on her holy soil by SS Vladimir and Olga.

The sad fact of the matter is that the PSCA group has very little actual Russian people in it (very little people) at all, being comprised of a SMALL NUMBER of Orange agents in Cassocks in Odessa styling themselves as "Ukrainian Aryans (Russophobic Russians)," Latin American third and fourth generation assimilates, and a handful of VERY unstable North American converts who HATE ALL THINGS RUSSIAN. (Visit Tennessee and simply listen for twenty minutes.) That's it. These people deride canons, reject any conciliar authority in resolution of controversies, and refuse to accept that the Synods which consecrated their Bishops not only CAN, BUT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, ADJUDICATING THEIR STATUSES and suspending and even DEPOSING THEM when they rebel, become vagantes and advance schism. A Father and Canon Lawyer like St. Basil the Great would expect no less of Orthodox synods.

When Greek aligned groups STUPIDLY join this fray and have their hierarchs make similarly stupid and schismatic statements and engage in acts which canonically will lead to the condemnation of these "True Orthodox resisters" when conciliar resolution does happen, one is left with no choice but to reevaluate the hubris which denatures the spiritual peace of these Greeks. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna HAS NO BUSINESS ENGAGING IN RUSSIAN POLITICS TO ADVANCE SCHISM IN THE RUSSIAN CHURCH AND RECOGNIZING, CONCELEBRATING WITH, DEPOSED CLERICS. For one, such acts are CONDEMNED BY THE HOLY CANONS WHILE THEY ARE MUCH THE MORE AT ODDS WITH THE ECCLESIOLOY HIS SYNOD STANDS FOR.

My answer to this vile hatred of my people, Faith, culture and history, my identity is quite simply this: for me, it is a matter of fidelity to the legacy of St. Tikhon, the Holy New Martyrs and what Blessed Philaret represented to be faithful to the "stalinist organism" AKA MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE OF ALL THE RUSSIAS and to eschew schism. One cannot be truly Russian Orthodox and faithful to the Russian church and in the same breath hate the symbol of Russian Orthodox preeminence and fidelity to Orthodoxy, which has historically defined itself by rejection of Byzantine Uniatism and corruption of Orthodox Faith and discipline by politics. St. Tikhon didn't seek to have a patriarchate for "Whites only" but actually sought a patriarchate which NOT ONLY RECOGNIZED but served the religious needs of a Russian people who had politically chosen Soviet government (in rejection of WHITE freemasonic British pleibescites and Prussian partitions).

People often mention this or that historical fact or talk about the "good ole days" with me and end up remarking how "I am so very much a voice of old ROCOR." Liberal neo Uniates like a Metropolitan Jonah have even leveled accusations and play games of guilt by association behind my back: I have to be the ROCOR strawman for them! I tell them that I am not at all, that I have generally rejected a ROCOR mythology and am RUSSIAN ORTHODOX, loyal to the Moscow Patriarchate, rejecting equally the scandal of a Grabbe or LebedeV controlled Synod, especially one in BED WITH THE FREEMASONs, along with schisms like the PSCA or the ecumenist failures which have destroyed--and who now rule--the OCA. I would not welcome such people as +Hilarion of New York with any tolerance and would enjoy very much exchanges with unread and very ignorant Judases like Fr. Seraphim Gan or Fr. Lebedev, but in the same breath, I must emphasize that I would not hesitate to address a Pashkovsky of Odessa likewise (perhaps more directly) or even a puffed up Fr. Nikita Grigoriev. God blessed me with a sufficiently Orthodox "Traditionalist" formation and a mind adequate enough to address topics with them, even though I am by no means anything more than sinful filth. God has been merciful to me in my life and I am thankful for all things.

Then again, when stupidities like "KGB agent" innuendos and other contrived inanities shower me from the Aganthelites, they not knowing that I personally have issues with HERETICS like Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev and the current NIKODIMITE Patriarch, I simply begin to not only doubt the sanity of these people, but even of their fundamental capabilities to reason. If they only knew that I disagreed with Fr. Shevkunov's take on the Vlasovite movement or that I reject Dugin as an agent of ISLAMIST Secretism, not any kind of acceptible Eurasianism, that I feel Putin is increasingly becoming inadequate and the "oprichnina" inaugurated with a clearly LIBERAL Medvedev is tiresome and only destroying Russian culture and 21st century Russian identity.

But, honestly, when someone, who celebrates being a RUSSOPHOBE, openly working to undermine Russian Orthodoxy, draped in a tacky, undisguised disgust of all things Russian, spews bile at me because of my Russian forebearers and my fidelity to Orthodoxy, they reveal themselves as enemies to every ideal I stand for. And when they are not Russian and shower you with John Birch stupidities, it is hyperbolic insensitivity to take such asinine assaults against Russian Orthodoxy and Russian Orthodox people and countries seriously. These are disturbed and openly ignorant people who celebrate their hate. They wallow in it like swine in their own filth. They are not only bomb throwers but stupid ones, who should be pitied for representing the "moron caste" which so defines "resisters" ("Matthewite," "Florinite," "Catacomb," etc.). When I think of ALL these unfortunate groups, I remember Lyovushka joking with people in Jordanvile and telling them, "By the way--You should know--I'm a secret /or Catacomb/ Protopresbyter." They are clearly mentally deranged, constituting nothing more than uanabashed, insipid voices of schism and estrangement from Christ, from HIS ONE TRUE CHURCH. What more needs be said?!

They presume that since they are the products of a Pashkovskyite CIA orchestrated Jonestown cult, that everyone else follows their lead and interpretation of "Orthodox fidelity" and "Russian identity" dictated by Blue and Yellow neo-Banderites. Not quite.

I recall when this PSCA schism was forming, I seriously wanted to know what they stood for and where they were going, what their vision was. I secretly tried to envision an Old Platina/Old Jordanville orientation. What became clear to me is that not only were their people NOT associated with these institutions, THEY WERE NOT FORMED IN THEM, but openly only used a system of "propaganda by association" to sell themselves. This counterfeit quickly became tiresome and distasteful when it became clear that they were not comfortable with ANY concept of Russian Orthodoxy. Which is fine. One need not be Russian to be Orthodox. Just be clear in saying you aren't. Then I asked a few of their clergy and monastics why it was important for them to insist on any type of Russian Orthodox identity, ROCOR or not. I asked since they were virtually ALL converts or non Russians or assimilates, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on their missions in diaspora, forming a local Orthodoxy concentrated in a Pan Orthodox approach, spirituality, ritual, and culminating in a local church to which they can and will be FAITHFUL as converts and assimilates. Yes, people, openly russophobes, could and should be Orthodox and have a place to worship. But reason dictates it shouldn't be Russian, neither for them, nor for the Russian church. Right?! They were offended by my question and began hating me for the implications I inserted into their approaches and orientations.

But, honestly, that is what they should have done. They should have done it with ETNA to avoid this nasty downward spiral of vanganteeism, schism and CIA-freemasonic directed NEO SERGIANISM. They didn't need a new jurisdiction. They simply needed to advance unity by UNITING WITH ETNA and formulating missions more Russian in ritual and spirituality than Greek in an OCA post Russian type way. So when they squawk about "splinters" and a "lack of unity," they exist as advocates of this great sin and the personifications of it. Nothing more.

I must say that the more I take the time to consider these people and their statements, the more I become uncomfortable not only with them, but especially the modern deformation of the old ROCOR mythology. I seriously want no part of that, even though it is a major part of my formation. I would advise everyone to just take a moment and consider these thoughts I am sharing and formulate their own opinions on these Pashkovskyite VAGANTE, SCHISMATICS. Their path will lead you out of the Church and endanger your immortal soul. Since it is directed by neo-Sergianist freemasonic agents, what else could it accomplish?!


Truth be told, when I think of Russian Orthodox dissidency today, who to me is most attractive, I find myself wishing that a Metropolitan Kornily of Moscow or the Belo Krinitsa Synod would adopt a more inclusive ecclesiology and appreciation for ALL Orthodox Traditionalism (of whatever rite), for if Unia were to result from Alfeev's or Lebedev's EVIL betrayals of Orthodoxy, that would be the first place I would like to visit, hoping that they could not only act to unite Priested Old Ritualists, but also faithfully Orthodox "Nikonians." I am a Nikonian who respects authentic Russian Orthodoxy in all guises.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on us, sinners!

-Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

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!

A Reply to "ROCOR and Old Calendarism": Abp Chrysostomos

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


Christos Anesti! Hristos Voskrese! Christ is Risen!


I have received, up to this moment, more than a dozen copies of the following article or links to the journal where it appeared. I do not quite understand why it is having such sudden wide distribution. Whatever the reason, it was written by a Priest of the ROCOR in England, whom I do not personally know.

I do not wish in any way to question the motivations of this individual for harboring such antipathy for the Old Calendarists; nor do I question the sincerity, in most instances below, of the convictions he holds on the basis of the data that he cites.


However, as my Confessor, His Grace, Bishop Ambrose of Methone wrote to me this morning, it is almost impossible to find in these comments any data that are at all factual. The poor man has simply been the victim of false information, whether conveyed to him deliberately or somehow misinterpreted by him because of his preconceived disdain for us Old Calendarists.


As Bishop Ambrose also observed (and rightly so ) silence is probably the best answer to material of this kind. However, in this country misinformation, "disinformation," outright fabrications, and rumors and gossip abound about Orthodoxy, which is often little known, in its spiritual infancy, and more often than not a home-grown reworking of Orthodoxy under the label of some "official" claim (whether by virtue of Patriarchal approbation, ethnic triumphalism, ecumenical recognition, fantasies of "worldwide status," or even "Americanism." I think that silence, therefore, can be dangerous at times. If the writer of this piece considers himself expert enough to write on the subject of Old Calendarism, yet makes so many factual errors, imagine how vulnerable those who know nothing about the subject are to such errors.


I do not, of course, care to address the author's dislike for Old Calendarists. Perhaps his experiences and limited associations with them have led him to what are, given those experiences and associations, justified misgivings. However, I would like to correct some of his very obvious factual errors, since their perpetuation is harmful.


Falsehood, whether repeated out of ignorance or calculatedly, serves only the Evil One. It thwarts the unity that, in our struggles for Orthodox authenticity and purity, is always our ultimate goal. It is also an impediment to the love that the author correctly says that some of us (and especially extremist) Old Calendarists at times fail to show and which we moderate Old Calendarists, in particular, must restore, along with, and partly by, setting the record straight.


I have made comments within the text, below, between dashes. I hope that they are helpful. I apologize and ask forgiveness for any comments that may seem offensive to the writer of this article. That is NOT by purpose. I offer these corrections with fraternal affection and peacefully to all who read them.


I am in the throes of another horrible virus, so please overlook any typos or unfinished thoughts or lacunae in the text (I think faster than I type!).

* * *



ROCOR and Old Calendarism

Even though there now approaches a Local Council of the Russian Church, at which the bishops and delegates of ROCOR dioceses will take a historic part in electing a new Patriarch, some voices still criticise ROCOR. These voices are those of dissidents who are backed by old calendarist movements in the Balkans or else by the politicised who are keen to make out that the Russian Church is still not free. What can be said in reply to these critics?




------
With regard to the Sister Old Calendar Churches in the Balkans, the Synod in Resistance of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece, the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, and the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, all of whom were in communion with the ROCOR before its union with Moscow in 2007, while we criticized the ROCOR's act of union on account of our opposition to the widespread ecumenical activities of the Moscow Patriarch and what we see as its association with the present Russian regime in a spirit that reflects the influence of the secular government of Russia (with its legacy of former Soviet leaders and policies), we back no dissidents in the Russian Church.


It is true that our Sister Churches maintain communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) under Metropolitan Agafangel, the single Bishop in the ROCOR who did not accept the union in 2007 and thus continued the witness of that Sister Church after his fellow Bishops joined with Moscow. However, as such, we see his Church as the continuation of the Church with which we were in communion before the Moscow union. This does not mean that we support dissidence or that we interfere in the activities of the ROCOR. It is simply a statement about what we consider to be the genuine ecclesiastical continuator of the spirit and witness of the Church with which we had communion.


While we may have firm and open differences with the course of the ROCOR with regard to its union with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007, as well as deep regrets about this, we have always agreed to disagree with its Bishops, allow that they have their own rationale, and state our objections logically and without undue offensiveness, and certainly without churlishness.------




As we know, the new calendar was introduced into the Church by freemasons (and those who stand behind them). Their aim was to divide the Church. This move was highly successful and every time there is a calendar schism, the freemasons rejoice. The old calendarists with their traditionalism become, despite themselves, the tragic tools of freemasons. For example, after the Second World War some Romanian old calendarists were used by the Secret Police (Securitate) in the same way as freemasons used the calendar to divide there before the Second World War. In other words, their aim was to weaken the new calendar Romanian Church.




------
The New Calendar was, of course, adopted by Bishops who, in some cases, were Freemasons. But more to the point, the New Calendar was adopted as part a move to play down the Orthodox Church's claims to historical primacy and thus to pave the way for its open and active participation in the ecumenical movement. The original Old Calendarists saw this move as one which comprised the Church's claim to primacy. This claim is, of course, the VERY SAME claim that has always kept the Roman Catholic Church, in its historical opposition to the Orthodox Church, from joining the ecumenical movement officially.


Whereas Rome took the spirit of ecumenism (even while maintaining an unofficial role in the ecumenical movement) as an opportunity to unite Christians under the Papacy, the Orthodox entered into the movement (with the exceptions of such outstanding voices as that of Father Georges Florovsky and a handful of others) by accommodating itself to the ecclesiastical relativism of such bodies as the World Council of Churches (WCC), thus ultimately coming to the point of publicly calling Orthodoxy one lung of the Church. and Roman Catholicism another; or, indeed, of characterizing Orthodox primacy as a "Medieval" idea. (This trend is the very thing that separated Father Florovsky, in his later years, from the WCC, which he helped found.)


It was a prophetic fear of this outcome that led the original Old Calendarists to oppose the New Calendar as a tragic step towards compromise and a relaxation of the teaching that Orthodoxy is the criterion of Christianity and the inheritor of the communities founded by Christ and the Apostles.


The history of the Romanian Old Calendarists, who gave their blood for their resistance movement and whose confessors were imprisoned for the Faith, were the victims of the Romanian Communist Securitate, as any reading of the history of the movement proves. Nothing else has ever been claimed by anyone educated in the history of the Old Calendar movement. One might begin a basic education in the history of the movement with a reading of the life of St. Glicherie, which is available in English.* One sees clearly its oppression by the Securitate and the collaborators in the Romanian Patriarchate.


* See http://www.ctosonline.org/oldcal/RU.html


Also, see my book (in Romanian) with Hieromonk Patapios, The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, published in Bucharest by the Ion Mincu University Press in 2006.
------



Who are the old calendarists? There are many different people, from the utterly sincere, zealous and well-intentioned, especially perhaps in troubled Bulgaria, to ruthless manipulators and cultish exploiters.




------
The Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria received its Hierarchy, of course, from the Synod in Resistance. I was one of the Co-Consecrators of its erudite First Hierarch, Bishop Photii of Triaditza, and he is one of my closest friends. I believe that his friendship with me and the Bishops of our Sister Churches, which constitute the vast majority of Old Calendarists, suggests that "clever" manipulators" and "cultish manipulators" are terms that the author of these comments should more circumspectly and more reservedly employ, given his respect for the Bulgarian Old Calendarists.------




At the beginning there were heroes among them (I myself have an icon of the Romanian Metr Glicherie - whose relics are incorrupt - and of St Catherine the Greek New Martyr for the calendar, both of whom I venerate). These were saintly people who suffered for the Faith. But today old calendarist elites (unlike the simple faithful) seem to be falling under the control of empire-makers and dividers - schismatics - unlike in the beginning. Indeed, as time goes on, the schismatic nature of old calendarism is becoming clearer. To St John of Shanghai it was clear in the 1950s and he refused to help the old calendarists. But St John was an utterly spiritual man. To the not so spiritual, the nature of old calendarism often did not become obvious until later.




------
St. John was, in fact, a great friend of the Old Calendarists. He not only visited Old Calendarist communities but can be pictured concelebrating with them. His approbation (or condemnation for that matter) of the movement is not, indeed,a significant point. Consensus and deliberation are the standards of Orthodoxy, and individual holy men and women, with respect to opinions about this or that movement, are not necessarily definitive or a measure of correctness.
------


Old calendarists attempt to justify themselves. For example, they quote that Elder Philotheos Zervakos was for them. But which Church did the Elder Philotheos belong to? The Church of Greece (new calendar). All this is self-justification for disobedience. The Romanian Elders Cleopa and Arsenie (Boca) and many others expressed the Orthodox understanding - as did other Elders in other countries. This understanding is that clearly the old calendar is the Orthodox calendar, but schism and disobedience are even more dangerous than having the fixed feasts on the wrong calendar.




------
Here, one must do his homework. The only Old Calendarist Hierarch who was a spiritual son of the holy and Blessed Elder Philotheos (Zervakos) was Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle, the First Hierarch of oour Synod in Resistance. It was Elder Philotheos who first directed me to Metropolitan Cyprian, after the latter had joined the Old Calendar movement with Elder Philotheos' blessing. With regard to the Blessed Philotheos' actual views, the following document is pivotal and critical:


http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_en/E3a4018GerFil-Ep2.pdf


As for Father Philotheos' membership in the New Calendar Church of Greece, Professor Constantine Cavarnos (who, though sympathetic to us, is not an Old Calendarist) notes that Father Philotheos, at the end of his life, had decided to return to the Old Calendar. But the Abbot of his monastery protested that this would "have grave consequences" for the monastery and that "the monks would be expelled by the local police" because it was in the jurisdiction of a New Calendar Bishop. Instead of provoking this kind of situation, Father Philotheos asked for a Hieromonk from the Holy Mountain, who followed the Old Calendar, to confess him and to conduct his funeral. Thus, he was to the very end very cognizant of the importance of the Calendar issue. (See Constantine Cavarnos, Blessed Elder Philotheos Zervakos, Volume 11 inModern Orthodox Saints [Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1993], pp. 74-75.)


While I would be the first to characterize extremist Old Calendarists with very negative language, on account of their violations of the primacy of love and the separations that they have engendered, we moderate Old Calendarists have every right to invoke the names of pious and sober New Calendarists who indeed support us, often secretly confess to us, and who, were it not for certain considerations that not all have the Grace to face, would be publicly with us.------



Another example of self-justification is in the welcome given to a small Greek old calendarist delegation in Romania. Just because they welcomed a delegation of Greek old calendarists in the new calendar monasteries of Romania, it does not mean that they agree with them. This is used as propaganda. We welcome contacts with old calendarists, as with others, because we hope and pray for their repentance. We all support the old calendar - but we do not support old calendarism. That is totally different. Every ism contains a sin against the Church.




------
I have no idea what event the writer is citing here, but I have visited New Calendar monasteries in Romania, where I was very cordially received. However, they very clearly understood that I did not agree with their positions and they quite clearly stated that they did not always agree with mine, despite great sympathy on the part of some for my concerns as a traditionalist. Nothing in this impeded our spiritual exchanges. I cannot imagine how this, at least in my case, was in any way motivated by self-justification. One need not justify what he sincerely is.


As for "isms," asceticism is an "ism" which surely does not constitute a sin against the Church. Here, too, we must avoid hyperbole both in concept and expression. What can become a sin is "criticism" improperly used, in a hyperbolic manner, to make arguments that divide and do not unite.------




Some people try and make out that ROCOR as a Church was old calendarist. That is not true, but it is true that some individuals in ROCOR were very tempted by it. We should not confuse individuals with the Church and her catholic (soborny) conscience. Such people refer to the generation between the 60s and the early 90s, when the Secretary of the ROCOR Synod in New York and his family came to power and tried to impose extreme views on ROCOR. Notably, great power was amassed during the time of Metropolitan Philaret, a saintly monk but weak administrator, who in his innocence consecrated the Secretary bishop.

The Secretary's end was tragic indeed, for, like his son, he died outside the Church. He himself forbade anyone from ROCOR to attend his funeral. Most ROCOR people and clergy (centred at the true heart of ROCOR in Jordanville) patiently defied him, his politicking and his encouragement of old calendarism. Indeed, the error of consecration by ROCOR bishops of an old calendarist to the episcopate had already before the time of the Secretary been condemned as uncanonical by the Synod itself, without whose canonical authority it had taken place. The bishops concerned had been severely censured.

It is true that some old calendarists had other admirers in ROCOR, but they were few. In the Western European Diocese we were prohibited from having anything to do with any old calendarists - not that the prohibition was necessary, we had no desire to do so. Thus, when some Romanian old calendarists tried to interrupt the glorification of St John in San Francisco in 1994, they were not allowed to concelebrate. As one ROCOR bishop present said at the time: 'If they are allowed to concelebrate, then I shall not'. These Romanian old calendarists are today among one of three small warring groups to have canonised Metr Philaret in an attempt to justify themselves and give themselves authority. His relics of course remain with ROCOR. Indeed, his possible canonisation has, if anything, been delayed by his ideological promotion by groups with which he had nothing to do and one of which did not even exist until two years ago.




------
It is not mine to enter into the unedifying issues of political differences and arguments over ecclesiastical polity in the ROCOR. However, I can say that it still follows the Old Calendar, as it did when we were in communion with it, and that, whatever the differing views of the Old Calendarist factions, in 1994, the following statement was entered into the union document between our Synod in Resistance and the ROCOR. Unanimously accepted by the Synod of Bishops and signed by every Bishop, it at least bears witness to the fact that our ecclesiology was not considered at odds with the Church at that time:


"The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principals (sic) as our Russian Church Outside of Russia." (See "Orthodox Life," published by the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY, Vol. XLIV, No. 4 (1994), pp. 46-50.)




Whether the Russian Church Abroad changed its position or whether certain parties did not agree with the Holy Synod's decision is another matter. But the facts are as I have presented them.


With regard to the Glorification of St. John in San Francisco, the writer has seriously misunderstood the facts. The Romanian Old Calendar delegation, under Metropolitan Vlasie, had already opened communion with ROCOR at the time of the Glorification of St. John, in which they participated by the invitation of Metropolitan Vitaly. They concelebrated with the ROCOR Bishops, in fact. The Bishops of the Old Calendar Church of Bulgaria and those of our Synod in Resistance were also invited to the Consecration. Though we did not serve, that very week, since we were Sister Churches of the Old Calendar Church of Romania, the ROCOR opened full communion with the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria and our Synod in Resistance of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece.


Our three Sister Churches are in harmonious union, not three "warring" groups. And the Romanian Old Calendarists, incidentally, did not Glorify Metropolitan Philaret of New York. This is an erroneous statement. As for his "ideological promotion" of various groups, this is a distasteful accusation against a holy and much respected man that I suspect the writer will regret on reflection.
------

It is very interesting to note that virtually all those who left ROCOR at the time of the reconciliation between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate were products of the Secretary. He ordained them personally or had them ordained. The departure of these elements has been a relief to many. Some of those who left ROCOR in the USA were retired CIA agents, as the Secretary was himself rumoured to be. They put anti-Communist politics first, the Church second. Many people were persecuted by them, like St John (put on trial by them), Fr Seraphim Rose, Bp Mitrophan of Boston, Metropolitan Laurus and many, many others. The full story of the persecution of ROCOR by Russian and Non-Russian sectarianism alike will one day be written.




------
Accusations of CIA involvement are difficult to prove. They are also irrelevant, since the CIA is not a criminal organization, however vehemently one may agree or disagree with its goals and methods. Intelligence agencies, moreover, are not always unidimensional in character, and often good causes are embraced by good people in many different contexts in such agencies.
------




Dissidents will tell you that Metr Philaret was against the Moscow Patriarchate in 1985, but that was because the then MP had not repented and glorified the New Martyrs. As a matter of fact we were all against the Moscow Patriarchate in 1985. There is no doubt, as the late Fr Roman Lukianov pointed out two years ago, that Metr Philaret would have been for the reconciliation today. Just because someone was against this 25 years ago, does not mean that they would be against it today. Personally, I was also against the reconciliation even 10 years ago. This was simply because the main representatives of the MP had not then repented.




------
Personal opinion is something that we should respect. But one must not consider his or her personal opinion infallible or a standard by which to condemn and berate those who may hold other opinions on the basis of other evidence and data.
------


It is this present refusal/inablity to recognise the repentance, not only in the words, but also in the actions of representatives of the MP, on the part of the dissidents, which is the most disturbing thing here. Metr Philaret himself acknowledged such a refusal to recognise repentance to be Donatism. In ROCOR we never had any problem with the Moscow Patriarchate itself, providing that it could be freed of Communist control inside Russia and freed of renovationism outside Russia ('the Sourozh syndrome'). Once the New Martyrs and Confessors had been canonised inside Russia (in 2000) and renovationism defeated outside Russia (the May 2006 defection of 300 members of Sourozh to Constantinople), there were no longer any difficulties for ordinary ROCOR believers. Thus ROCOR and the MP were reconciled, as Metr Antony (Khrapovitsky) said we would be, as integral parts of the whole and freed Russian Church.




------
There are those who doubt the nature and sincerity of the changes in post-Communist Eastern European countries. This is a not a denial of repentance to anyone. Moreover, no moderate Old Calendarists hold to the view that the Churches in these countries have no Grace, even if they have walled themselves off from what they consider their errors. They thus do not deny them the possibility of salvation, which is the aim of repentance.


Arguing for the restoration of the fullness of Holy Tradition and for the correction of errors in a Church, which has led to cessations in communion between entire national Churches at times, is not something that can be glibly covered by references to "syndromes" or the like. Such argumentation is often nuanced and complex. It must be approached with charity and a willingness to listen to all sides.------


It is true that dissidents have noted that the Moscow Patriarchate has still not canonised St Joseph of Petrograd. This is largely irrelevant, because ROCOR has canonised St Joseph and his icon can be found all over Russia and inside churches of the Patriarchate. St Joseph of Petrograd is a saint. However, it is true that there were former disciples of St Joseph who are not saints, but embarked on a schismatic course. They claim the authority of St Joseph, but do not have it. This is precisely why the MP has not yet officially canonised St Joseph, because of those sectarian elements inside Russia who use his good name to justify their actions. Sadly, this is an exact parallel to the situation in ROCOR, which has not yet canonised Metr Philaret - because such a canonisation now would be exploited by sectarian elements.




------
We might do well to leave Church politics behind when we begin speaking of the sanctity of those transformed in Christ. Debates about personal skills, administrative debilities, or the possible political ramifications of the Glorification of a holy person are not consistent with the sobriety of the Church's understanding of Sainthood and the process by which it is acknowledged formally.
------

The problem is not the calendar, it is all about humility, obedience and love. It is the problem of the Jews who condemned Christ for healing on the Sabbath. They made an idol out of the Sabbath. Today's old calendarists are tending to do the same. They are losing sight of the most important thing, because they are attached to the details. The proof that they have a problem is in their divisions, the countless, bickering, 'old calendarist', 'True Orthodox', 'catacomb' sects. The Church does not divide, it unites. This is not at all because there are no sinful people in the Church, but because the Holy Spirit is in the Church. We are not saved because of our sinful selves, but in spite of our sinful selves, saved by the mercy of God. However, outside the Church, outside the Holy Spirit, you will not find unity, only sinful people and where there are only sinful people, there is only division.


------
Orthodoxy is about the humility, obedience, repentance, and love that lead us to preserve with our whole hearts the entirety of Holy Tradition, constantly battling the forces of the Evil One, who seeks to politicize, defile, and divide the Church. In our efforts, we should never make the divisions that he exploits matters of who is "in" and "outside" the Church. This is not in the spirit of Christ. I do not for a moment believe that everyone outside Orthodoxy is sinful, if simply because all of us within Orthodoxy are sinful. It is not our task to condemn others for sin, but to call them to salvation.


We should see the Church only through that prism and understand our temporary divisions only in that way, seeking absolute humility in obeying and preserving Holy Tradition, repenting for the divisions that all of us cause by our sins, and with great love asking the forgiveness of those who have wronged us and knowing that, in so doing, we cover the wrongs that we have visited on others. It is in this spirit that we should approach our differences. In this spirit alone will they be resolved.
------
May God save us all!


------
Rather, may God forgive us for our quick condemnations of others, such that we have sullied the perfect core of His Church, which is preserved in Orthodoxy and which we are denying to others by our proud hatred of our brothers and sisters and our arrogant, sinful desire to divide permanently with animosity the Church in its purifying temporary divisions. Shame on all of us! We Orthodox should humbly prostrate before the rest of the Christian world for what we squander and deny them with our scandals!


In HOLY TRADITION in its fullness, we will preserve the Faith and fulfill the greatest commandment of Christ, spreading His salvific message to all, Baptizing all into Orthodoxy, and bringing mankind into union, by Grace, with Him.
------

Paschal Epistle of Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi, Synod in Resistance

ENCYCLICAL
for the All-Glorious Resurrection of Christ our Savior The Victory of Suffering Love

“He loved them unto the end”
Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Light-Wrought children of
the Church: The “Gospel,” the joyous and Good News of our salvation in Christ, as we all know, commences with joy: “Fear not,” said the Angel to the
blessed shepherds, “for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy”;1 yet it also ends with joy: “And they [the Holy Apostles] worshipped him [our Lord at the As-
cension], and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”2 Our Holy Orthodox Church,
which is, quite literally, the Church of Joyousness, is not only a herald of
this great joy, but has become and is— through the Holy Resurrection—the everlasting fountain and the unique bearer of true and quintessential joy. The Orthodox ethos of our Church, noble and compassionate, holy and blessed, is imbued with the presence of the Risen Christ; the Resurrection of our Savior, as an historical event, but also as a “continuous nowness” in the Church, permeates the being of the world, giving meaning to its existence and meaning to man’s life.

My Christ-loving Brothers and Sisters:
The joy of the Resurrection dawned forth from the sorrow of the Cross. The Crucifixion of our Lord was, to be sure, not a defeat or a failure, but a voluntary self-oblation, a redemptive sacrifice, offered out of tender love, and as a final token: “having loved,” says the Holy Apostle John prior to the Passion, “...having loved his own, which were in the world, he [the Lord] loved them unto the end.”3
Only through a love which endures “unto the end,”4 that is, to the sorrow of the Cross, is it possible for our salvation, our victory over Satan, sin, and death, to be accomplished.

The poignant cry of our Savior upon the Cross, “It is finished,”5 was essentially a cry of victory. Deliverance is achieved and fulfilled. The victory is henceforth a certainty, having been confirmed by the “work” which the Father entrusted to the Son: “Father, I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”; “all things have now been accomplished.”6 The sorrow of our Lord “unto death,”7 unto extreme weakness, for our sake did not come about so that we might be freed from sorrow and the afflictions of this world, but in order that His sorrow might
become our own, and thus our afflictions for the sake of His love and for our brother might be transformed into sorrows of travail, into pangs that will give birth to our personal resurrection and the resurrection of the world.

My Brothers and Sisters who bear the name of Christ:
A love which—on account of Christ and by His mystical power—undergoes travail is a victory of suffering love;8 this love has overcome and will overcome the world, since it is omnipotent. Evil and disorder at a personal and collective level cannot be overcome by force, compulsion, or an authoritarian imposition of good and order.

Dostoevsky’s Staretz Zosima expresses the Orthodox ethos on this
matter: “Always decide: ‘I will combat it by humble love.’ If you resolve on that once and for all, you can conquer the whole world. Loving humility is a fearsome force: it is the strongest of all things, and there is nothing else like it.”9
The love that suffers is the love that the Incarnate, Crucified, and Resurrected God-Man has bequeathed to us. The victory of suffering love, a victory won through the Cross and Resurrection, ought to become our unceasing personal way of life, if we wish to be true Christians and worthy of the love of Him Who “laid down his life for the sheep”10 and Who, through His “self-emptying,”11 His self-abasement and perfect infirmity, has filled us with great joy. May this great joy, which flows from the victory of suffering love, steadfastly typify our character, through the intercessions of the most blessed Theotokos and the inestimable prayers of our Elder and guide, Metropolitan Cyprian, who bears the seal of Christ, to the glory of the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Christ is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!
Holy Resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ, 2010

Your humble supplicant before our Risen Lord,
† Bishop Cyprian of Oreoi,
Acting President
of the Holy Synod in Resistance
N.B.: The Reverend Parish Priests are asked to read the present Encyclical immediately after the Holy Gospel at the Divine Liturgy of Pascha.

***
1 St. Luke 2:10.


2 St. Luke 24:52.
3 St. John 13:1.
4 See note 3.
5 St. John 19:30.
6 St. John 17:4; 19:28.
7 St. Matthew 26:38; St. Mark 14:34.
8 Archimandrite Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (London: Mowbrays, 1979), p.
107.
9 Ibid., p. 108.
10 Cf. St. John 10:15.
11 Cf. Philippians 2:7: “[h]e emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a servant.”