Ecclesiological Discussion and Clarification Between Bishop Victor and Archpriest Silouan

Also, following various conversations on ecclesiological matters held between Bishop Victor and Fr. Silouan, the following text has been prepared:


False accusations have been published claiming that the Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) has adopted the ecclesiology of the Boston Greeks (that is, the synod commonly referred to as “HOCNA”). Nothing could be further from the truth. The RTOC is canonical and possesses its Apostolic Succession directly from our Holy Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret. Its ecclesiology is derived from the Holy Hierarch Patriarch Tikhon and from the four hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR): the Metropolitans Antony, Anastasy, Philaret, and Vitaly (who expressed his ecclesiology in Mansonville, Canada, in a written and signed document after separating himself from his false brother bishops who betrayed ROCOR by uniting with the Soviet Church, the Moscow Patriarchate).


Furthermore, unlike the Cyprianites, the Synod of the RTOC firmly embraces the position adopted by the ROCOR Synod under the guidance of the Holy Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret against the spiritual threat of Ecumenism, which had begun to permeate the Orthodox world. This includes the so-called “Sorrowful Epistles” of the 1960s, the decision of the 1971 ROCOR Sobor to receive all non-Orthodox converts through baptism — triple immersion — regardless of how they had previously been baptized (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Monophysites, etc.), and finally the Anathema Against Ecumenism proclaimed by the 1983 ROCOR Sobor.


Unfortunately, at the 1994 Sobor, ROCOR fell under its own Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983) by uniting with the Cyprianites (“Synod in Resistance”). By that time, the Holy Metropolitan Philaret had already reposed in the Lord (+1985).


The heresy of the Cyprianites consists in the belief that the Mother Church (in their case, the Greek New Calendar Church) should be regarded as “ailing,” yet still possessing Divine Grace. Therefore, members of the Greek New Calendar Church are permitted to receive Holy Communion in Cyprianite Old Calendar churches, and vice versa. By accepting this ecclesiology, ROCOR formally rejected its own Anathema Against Ecumenism, thereby justifying its union with its new “Mother,” the Moscow Patriarchate.


Of course, the Church cannot be “ailing.” The Church cannot become sick. The Church heals her faithful; she does not infect them with disease. And what is this “disease”? It is heresy — Ecumenism and the Papal Calendar, at the very least. Is it possible for the Church to be in heresy and still remain the Church? Certainly not. Some say that we must wait for an Eighth Ecumenical Council before making such decisions. Yet does anyone still insist that our decisions regarding the heresies of Protestants and Roman Catholics over the last thousand years must be postponed?


The history of the Cyprianites is founded upon schism and heresy — the former always giving rise to the latter. By secretly consecrating additional bishops to support their new ecclesiology, the Cyprianites created a schism within the Greek Old Calendarist Church (GOC). The GOC, under Archbishop Auxentios and later under Archbishop Chrysostomos, twice deposed this group of new bishops and declared them devoid of Apostolic Succession.


The current First Hierarch of the GOC, Archbishop Kallinikos, was one of these deposed bishops. He repented and was received back into the GOC. Yet now, several decades later, he has once again united himself with his former deposed companions (the Cyprianites) through a lengthy document outlining their union. However, this document never mentions the heretical ecclesiology of the Cyprianites, nor does it mention the two GOC decisions in which they had been condemned. According to the Cyprianite bishops themselves, they were never reinstated as bishops within the GOC after their deposition. They continue to profess their former beliefs; they were never asked to repent, nor would they ever have accepted such conditions.


Prior to the union between the GOC and the Cyprianites, Bishop Agafangel (Pashkovsky) departed from ROCOR (which was preparing to unite with the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007), stating that he was not opposed to such a union, but merely believed the time was not yet right. In order to create his new ROCOR-A, he consecrated all of his new bishops while concelebrating with Cyprianite bishops. Later, when questioned during a clergy meeting, Bishop Agafangel declared: “I am a Cyprianite!” He would later become Metropolitan of ROCOR-A.


It should also be noted that Metropolitan Agafangel has his own peculiar ecclesiology. In 1994, Bishop Agafangel apparently rejected the 1971 decision of the ROCOR Sobor. He wrote:


“…the Grace of the Holy Spirit, the Grace of the Sacraments, also resides among Catholics, Monophysites, and partly among Old Believers and Protestants who have not violated the formula in performing the sacraments (baptism). The Orthodox Church does not rebaptize those coming from these heresies, but receives them through repentance. Roman Catholics and Monophysites are not chrismated a second time. The Sacrament of Marriage is also accepted. In the Moscow Patriarchate, six Sacraments have been preserved and are recognized as valid: baptism, chrismation, priesthood, marriage, unction, and repentance.”
— Bishop Agafangel Pashkovsky, Vestnik TOC, No. 2, 1994, p. 30


Unlike the various “fragment synods” (as they are often called) formed after the union of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate, the RTOC does not regard itself as a fragment of ROCOR. The RTOC is the fulfillment of Patriarch Tikhon’s Ukaz No. 362. Patriarch Tikhon foresaw the destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church. In order to preserve the Church, this Ukaz was issued to unite all bishops and dioceses outside Russia. This work was carried out by Metropolitans Antony and Anastasy, and later brought to completion by Metropolitan Philaret, who provided the consecrations of two ruling bishops in Russia (Archbishops Lazar and Veniamin), who, foreseeing the disappearance of ROCOR, canonically consecrated bishops for the RTOC.


It is clear that ROCOR was never a fragment, nor was it autonomous. It was the Russian Orthodox Church — outside Russia (hence the name ROCOR). The Church within Russia went underground and became known as the Catacomb Church. The purpose of ROCOR was to preserve the Church of Russia and return it to Russia after the fall of the theomachist Communist regime, which has indeed been accomplished, albeit quietly and modestly.


The fragment synods attempt to resurrect ROCOR by invoking Ukaz No. 362, but in reality they work against its original purpose. Are they uniting themselves with Russian bishops or with Greek synods? Metropolitan Agafangel himself stated that he would unite with almost anyone except the RTOC. Why? He is from Odessa. He was one of the bishops consecrated for Russia. Do these fragment bishops truly understand the meaning of Ukaz No. 362? Have they even read it? Instead of seeking unity, they are undoing the work of our ROCOR Metropolitans. They are creating schisms. One could successfully argue that they are collaborating in the work of Stalin’s Moscow Patriarchate against ROCOR. When Stalin created the Moscow Patriarchate in 1943, Metropolitan Anastasy stated that this was the greatest damage Stalin could inflict upon the Russian Church. Today we can see the fulfillment of Metropolitan Anastasy’s warning.