Archbishop Theodore of Borisovskoye and Otradna, Secretary of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC), Responds to Various Questions from the Faithful:
Fr. Elias Greer, Chancellor
Vladyka Valentine was made a bishop by four hierarchs of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR)-Archbishop Mark of Berlin
and Germany, Archbishop Anthony of Geneva and Western Europe, Bishop
Barnabas of Cannes, and Bishop Gregory. The consecration took place in
the memorial church of St. Job the Muchsuffering on February 10th,
1991, in Brussels.
What led to the reason why Vladyka Valentine left the ROCOR?
He got in the way of the ROCOR's plans for unification with the
heretics/ecumenists of the Moscow Patriarchate, which had already
begun by then. The ROCOR's well-known expert on canon law, Vladyka
Gregory (Grabbe), wrote in one of his articles, that the Synod of the
ROCOR "did absolutely everything possible to force the Russian
Prelates to separate themselves administratively." In the process of
getting rid of Vladyka Valentine, the Synod of the ROCOR committed a
whole series of canonical infractions, and, unfortunately, was
supported in this by almost the entire episcopacy of the ROCOR.
By separating himself from the ROCOR, didn't Vladyka Valentine cause a
schism, the so-called "Suzdal schism?"
The thing is that, in connection with the revolution in Russia and
the Bolsheviks' persecution of the Church, the central Higher Church
Authority of the Greek-Russian Orthodox Church, as it was called back
then, disappeared. This took place in the year 1937, when the
Hieromartyr Peter Krutitsky, the legitimate Locum Tenens of the
Patriarchal Throne (i.e. recognized as such by the entire episcopate
of the Russian Church), died. The Bolsheviks could not permit the
convocation of a Sobor in order to elect a new patriarch at the time,
when there was an ongoing, all out, persecution of the Church, and of
religion in general. However, the holy Patriarch Tikhon had
providentially foreseen the possibility of such a difficult situation
developing, and as far back as 1918, had issued a very important
document, establishing a canonical form of government for the Russian
Church in the case that the central Higher Church Authority
disappeared. This was Ukase #362. It grants the right to dioceses and
even to individual bishops "who are found to be in similar
circumstances" to govern themselves independently (the right of
autonomy). During the time of persecution, the Church was forced to
return to the conditions that She was in during the first three
centuries of Christianity, with the simplest and most basic form of
church organization-communities of believers with their bishops at the
head. This basic unit-one bishop with his flock-constitutes one
complete church. It goes without saying that the bishops inside
Russia, for example, were "in similar circumstances" of persecution as
well as the bishops outside of Russia; and furthermore, neither group
was required to be in administrative subjugation to the other. The
catacomb part of the Russian Church existed in parallel with the part
that was abroad. During that time, many catacomb priests commemorated
Metropolitan Philaret, the First Hierarch of the ROCOR, as the head of
the Church.
From this it is plain to see why the bishops inside Russia, finding
themselves in a situation where they were completely torn away from
and even persecuted by the Synod of the ROCOR from 1992-1994, in
accordance with Ukase #362, had every right to adopt an autonomous
existence, independent from the authority of the ROCOR, to which they
earlier had submitted themselves voluntarily. The Synod of the ROCOR
itself, as the part of the Russian Church which was outside of Russia,
also existed as such on the basis of this same ukase, and in this
sense, had an equal footing, both with the Catacomb Church, and with
the Synod of Bishops of the ROAC. So, for this reason, there was no
schism, nor could there be one.
Now that the ROCOR(L) is joining the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), some of
the clergy and laity of the ROCOR, who are opposed to this, are
looking for another Russian jurisdiction to go to. Some of them are
joining the True Russian Orthodox Church (TROC), but do not want to go
to the ROAC because they think that your Church is not canonical,
since the bishops of your Church, especially Bishop Valentine, were
deposed by the ROCOR. What do you have to say to this?
The bishops of our Church were never deposed by the ROCOR. To the
contrary, one of them, Vladyka Agafangel (Pashkovsky), was even
received into the ROCOR in his rank as bishop. Vladyka Valentine was
indeed "deposed," but in this case, according to St. Paul, "they
judged another man's servant," i.e. he was someone the ROCOR no longer
had any say about. Furthermore, this "deposition" was done in
accordance with an agreement between Mark of Berlin and the Moscow
Patriarchate. Both the ROCOR and the MP performed this action at
almost exactly the same time.
As far as the Synod of Vladyka Tikhon goes, the separation from ROCOR
was done by Bishop Valentine in concert with Archbishop Lazar, and
furthermore, by the latter's initiative. However, Bishop Evtikhy
scared Vladyka Lazar so much with the threat of punishment by the
ROCOR, that after taking part in ordaining new bishops for the Russian
Church, he gave in and returned to the ROCOR. Vladyka Valentine,
conversely, remained faithful to Ukase #362 of St. Patriarch Tikhon,
which was the basis upon which he and Vladyka Lazar had separated from
the ROCOR in the first place. However, nothing good came of Vladyka
Lazar's return to the ROCOR. At that time, after the 1994 sobor in the
Lesna Convent, at which the decision do begin talks with the MP was
adopted, many began to see that the spiritual course of the ROCOR had
taken a sharp turn for the worse, and that sooner or later, the
bishops inside Russia would either have to join "world Orthodoxy"
along with the ROCOR, or else they would have to separate themselves
on the basis of an autonomous existence in accordance with the ukase
of Patriarch Tikhon, in order to preserve the Orthodox Faith. For this
reason, it is no wonder that as a result, Vladyka Lazar was forced to
separate himself again, in 2003. This time, however, as a result of
the intrigues of those around him, he did not return to Vladyka
Valentine. This is the very same jurisdiction that Archbishop Tikhon
is in charge of now. We are not opposed to having a dialogue and
establishing a relationship with them.
Many people are saying now that, although the Moscow Patriarchate is
indeed part of the one Russian Church, they are not ready to join up
with it because the proper conditions have not yet been met, i.e. the
MP has not yet made a satisfactorily clear statement condemning
Sergianism, nor has it withdrawn from membership in the World Council
of Churches. What do you have to say about this?
The Moscow Patriarch is not a church at all. In our Church, there are
no Christians in name only, but only those who place the truth above
their own benefit. The government exploits the MP, and its doors are
open to anyone and everyone, and in contradistinction to us, it is not
possible for it to cleanse itself in the fires of persecution,
suffering, and poverty. In the MP, the spirit of this world is at
work. The government, and even the MP's own hierarchs, make use of it
for their own benefit. It could be said that the MP does not operate
vertically, in the direction of God, but horizontally. It is
constantly becoming broader and more inclusive, absorbing all kinds of
humanistic movements, and that it is filled to overflowing with junk
theology-Sergianism and ecumenism. In our Church, the majority of the
communities are still in the catacombs, whose main characteristic, I
would say, is their concentration on the spiritual life, but in the
communities of the MP, there is nothing but oeconomia regarding the
canons of the Church, and complacency when it comes to the dogmas of
the Faith. The Moscow Patriarchate has no intention of leaving the
World Council of Churches, and it does not want to lose its political
relevance. Whether or not all of the different religions are equal
before God, is a matter for God to decide, not Metropolitan Kirill
Gundyaev. If sin is born of weakness, and man needs to be strengthened
in faith and comforted, then heresy is born of a stubborn will, and
heretics, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, must be cut
off, so that they do not infect the flock of Christ.
Many often express the desire for all True Orthodox Churches
throughout the world to recognize each other, to be in Eucharistic
communion with each other, and to support each other, especially in
these last days of the final battle between the Church of Christ and
the church of the Antichrist, which is even now taking shape. Do you
think that such a unity is possible?
We are not open to having any dialogue with the churches of "world
Orthodoxy," but we are open to the idea of having a relationship and
dialogue with all True Orthodox Churches, if they have legitimate
Apostolic succession and share our views on ecumenism, Sergianism and
the new calendar. Unity with them is desirable for us. I think that
all True Orthodox Churches should definitely support each other.
What is your position, and what is the position of your Church, on the
ROCOR?
Our position on the ROCOR is one of love, and of sorrow for the fact
that once She joins the MP, She will cease being the Church of Christ.
Unfortunately, this ark of the truth is already wide open for
accepting the heresies of world Orthodoxy; the house is burning and
engulfed in flame. It is time for Her to think about saving Her life,
and about salvation in Christ.
In 1994, A. Shtilmark made accusations against Metropolitan Valentine,
who was then known as Bishop Valentine, of a moral nature.
This accusation, as His Grace Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) said at that
time, was made by an enemy of the Church, since Shtilmark was a member
of the Moscow Patriarchate, and according to the canons, it was not
admissible for deliberation by the Synod of the ROCOR. Nevertheless,
the Synod demanded and explanation from Bishop Valentine, which he
immediately furnished. The Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR, which met in
the Lesna Convent, dismissed all of A. Shtilmark's accusations as
uncanonical. In witness to this, Bishop Valentine received an ukase
signed by the Secretary of the Synod, Bishop Hilarion, on December
1st, 1994.