Are all sectarians being treated this way, or are the “sectarians” of the ROAC church being singled out for this treatment? What evil are these people doing by going to church and saying their prayers the way they want to? Why would this be a threat to the governing authorities? How does the present government of the Russian Federation even determine who is a sectarian? Since the fall of Communism, Russia, in its bid to join the rest of the civilized nations of the world, has signed international treaties guaranteeing freedom of conscience for its citizens, and separation of church and state.

It would seem that events like this one do more to reinforce the oft-repeated observation of late that the present leaders of the ex-Soviet Union are returning more and more to their former totalitarian ways. It is hard to imagine that any kind of demonstration like this could take place in the West.

.

A new definition has crept into World Orthodoxy in recent years. World Orthodoxy has begun to recognize Orthodox Churches on the basis of their being 'canonical'. By this newly accepted definition, to be 'canonical' a church must be in full communion with Constantinople. Constantinople has become World Orthodoxy's touchstone. In fact, occasionally there are press releases that describe the Patriarchate of Constantinople as an Eastern Papacy or "the leader of World Orthodoxy.” The late Patriarch Demetrius described the Ecumenical Patriarch as the foremost bishop of Orthodoxy. If a church falls away from communion with him, it is no longer 'canonical'.

Let's ask a simple question: How did the understanding of the term 'canonical' change? According to the Holy Fathers,    Read More

.

In 1926, Archbishop Theophanes of Poltava and Pereyaslavl, wrote the following in his work, "Short canonical judgements on chronology":

Question. Have the pastors of the Orthodox Church made a judgement concerning the calendar?
Answer. They have, many times - with regard to the introduction of the new Roman calendar - both in private assemblies and in councils. A proof of this is the following. First of all, the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II, who lived at the same time as the Roman calendar reform, immediately, in 1582, together with his Synod condemned the new Roman system of chronology as being not in agreement with the Tradition of the Church. In the next year (1583), with the participation of Patriarchs Sylvester of Alexandria and Sophronius VI of Jerusalem, he convened a Church Council. This Council recognised the Gregorian calendar to be not in agreement with the canons of the Universal Church and with the decree of the First Ecumenical Council on the method of calculating the day of Holy Pascha.

Through the labours of this Council there appeared: a Conciliar tome, which denounced the wrongness and unacceptability for the Orthodox Church of the Roman calendar, and a canonical conciliar Decree - the Sigillion of November 20, 1583. In this Sigillion all three of the above-mentioned Patriarchs with their Synods called on the Orthodox firmly and unbendingly, even to the shedding of their blood, to hold the Orthodox Menaion and Julian Paschalion, threatening the transgressors of this with anathema, cutting them off from the Church of Christ and the gathering of the faithful.

In the course of the following three centuries: the 17th, 18th and 19th, a whole series of Ecumenical Patriarchs decisively expressed themselves against the Gregorian calendar and, evaluating it in the spirit of the conciliar decree of Patriarch Jeremiah II, counselled the Orthodox to avoid it.

Question. Is the introduction of the new calendar important or of little importance?
Answer. Very important, especially in connection with the Paschalion and it is an extreme disorder and ecclesiastical schism, which draws people away from communion and unity with the whole Church of Christ, deprives them of the grace of the Holy Spirit, shakes the dogma of the unity of the Church and, like Arius, tears the seamless robe of Christ, that is, everywhere divides the Orthodox, depriving them of oneness of mind; breaks the bond with Ecclesiastical Holy Tradition, and makes them fall under conciliar condemnation for despising Tradition.

Question. How must the Orthodox relate to the new calendarist schismatics, according to the canons?
Answer. They must have no communion in prayer with them, even before their conciliar condemnation.

.

The newspaper *Pravoslavnaya Rus*, in its issue number seventeen of the present year, published the Decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad concerning the establishment of prayerful Eucharistic communion with the group of Old Calendarists headed by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili.[1]

In its concluding section the Decision elucidates the causes that prompted the Sobor to take this step. However, in not one of its six points does it mention that the Sobor of 1975 resolved not to have communion with the Greek groups until they themselves had become united, and the Synod, already presided over by Metropolitan Vitaly, reaffirmed this wise decision in the spring of 1993, that is, a mere year and a half ago. Everyone is aware that the Greek groups can in no wise boast of having already achieved unity, yet the present Conciliar Decision offers no explanation whatsoever for this abrogation by the Sobor of its previous resolutions.

Thus, in the Decision it is stated,   Read More

.

Not a month has gone by since the ignominious capitulation of the ROCOR to the MP, but already the spirit of their new masters is showing itself.

At about 7:00 PM on Thursday, July 12th n.s., the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, Bishop Andrew, the Administrator of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church in the US, visited the cemetery at Novo Diveevo Convent, as he usually does on this day, to serve a panikhida at the grave of his spiritual Father and mentor Archbishop Andrei (Rymarenko) of Rockland, who died on this feast.

From 1976 to 1978, Bishop Andrew had lived at Novo Diveevo and served Archbishop Andrei as his cell attendant. In return for his services, Archbishop Andrei gave him private lessons in preparation for his ordination to the priesthood. On Dormition 1982, Bishop Andrew (then known as Fr. Michael Maklakov) was ordained to the priesthood by St. Metropolitan Philaret in the cathedral church at Novo Diveevo.

After serving the panikhida on Thursday, Bishop Andrew was approached by a priest hitherto unknown to him. This priest introduced himself as Fr. George Zelenin from Paterson, NJ. Fr. George asked Bishop Andrew, “And who are you, Father?” Bishop Andrew replied, “My name is Bishop Andrew.” Fr. George continued, “Well then, Father, you ought to know, especially if you are a bishop, as you say you are, that you have no right to serve a panikhida in the cemetery without first receiving permission from the rector.” Bishop Andrew responded, “Thank you for the information, Father.” Then he continued, “Perhaps you don’t know, but I had been Archbishop Andrei’s cell attendant.” Fr. George responded, “Oh yes, I know. We know everything about you. Nevertheless, this does not change the fact that you must still get permission before entering the cemetery, especially if you want to do any kind of service.” Bishop Andrew responded, “This cemetery is a public place. There are graves here of Ukrainians, Romanians, Greeks, Georgians, Bulgarians, Roman Catholics and Protestants. In thirty years, I have never heard of anyone asking for permission to visit the cemetery in order to pray for the souls of the dead.” Fr. George’s answer to Bishop Andrew’s statement that the cemetery was a public place was, “Not exactly, not exactly.” By this time, Fr. George was shaking and his voice was quivering uncontrollably. Bishop Andrew then said, “Well, if you are so sure about your statement, you can call the police if you wish, but I’m not leaving until I am ready to leave.”

It was Bishop Andrew’s impression that someone had put Fr. George up to this altercation, since he had never met him before this moment, and did not know who he was. It is also a well-known fact that many clergymen visit the cemetery at all hours of the day and evening without seeking special permission. Indeed, there is nowhere to ask for permission anyway, especially at that time of the evening. The idea itself is absurd. There is indeed a custom of asking for permission from the rector before serving inside someone else’s church building. But to extend this to a cemetery is really a stretch. Do they think now that the remains of six thousand of the staunchest opponents of the Soviet Union and the MP have joined them in their apostasy? Do they intend to hold them “hostage” now in an effort to force the rest of us to join them?

This is not the Soviet Union or the Russian Federation, its bastard child, that we are talking about. This is the United States of America, the land of the free, where this took place. Bishop Andrew is not Russian, nor is he of Russian descent. He does speak Russian, as well as four other languages. Twenty-six years ago, when he was about to become a Russian Orthodox priest, he russified his last name in order to fit in better with the people that he would be serving. His great-great-great-great grandfather was one of the Minutemen who fought at Concord and Lexington, and later served as quartermaster in the army of General George Washington. And now he is being told by a “New Russian” that he has no right to enter a public cemetery to pray for the repose of the soul of his spiritual father, a man whose sufferings for not accepting the declaration of Sergius Stragorodsky are well known!?! What can we expect from these people next? “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” (Matt. 10:36) “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” (John: 16:2)

*******************************

From Louisiana: Wow! What a story! “Blessed are you when men shall revile and persecute you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven.” Archbishop Andrei (Rymarenko) must be spinning in his grave, so to speak.

From Argentina: This is a very sad news, but there we can see who are the "new masters" of Lavrites, and they are just the "new commissars" of the MP. So, just as those were servants of Stalin, now the lavrites are servants of MP and his master neo-stalinist Putin.

From California: This is outrageous!...I am so sorry that you were treated like this, especially being the descendant of those made this country independent from outside domination. But it looks like this is merely the start of the long Soviet reach to rule here! Unbelievable! ...Well, this incident displays how very evil these people are in their persecution of those who have seen the light way back when - and acted upon it instead of whispering complaints like the Rocor clerics who won't ever endanger their "positions" and "reputations" to move to a correct jurisdiction.Thank you for conveying a shocking bit of truth of these vipers!

From France: Lord, have mercy!

.

Your Grace, Fathers and Brethren, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to speak to you today about the problem of conservative New Calendarism. By conservative New Calendarists I mean those who consider the institution of the Gregorian calendar and involvement in the ecumenical movement to be misguided, unfortunate, or even to some degree heretical, but nevertheless remain in churches which follow the New Calendar and foster Ecumenism. While conservative New Calendarists rightly consider Orthodoxy to be the one and only true Church of Christ and adhere to Orthodox doctrines and practices with admirable zeal, they find themselves under bishops who deny those doctrines and shun traditional piety. Although this situation is certainly uncomfortable for them, they are obligated to justify it, and to this end employ the following argument:

The participation of our bishops in the ecumenical movement is wrong, but it is only an abuse, not a heresy; and if it even descends to the level of heresy, it occurs only on a personal, not an official, level.

Thus the church as a whole is not implicated in the heresy, and one may in good conscience continue in communion with the bishops in question. This line of reasoning underlies virtually all serious attempts to justify remaining in the New Calendarist, or Ecumenist church, and not returning to the Old Calendarist, or traditional Orthodox Church.

The argument in itself begs the question of...   Read More

.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) has ceased to exist. But not as a result of the events of May 17th. That was only the epilogue. In the Russian language newspaper Nasha Strana (Our Country), S.V. Volkov wrote these remarkable words: The ROCOR ceased to exist the moment the idea was accepted by its Synod that talks with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) were possible.

The ROCOR had stood on two principles.

The first one was a consistent stance of anti-Sovietism and anti-Communism. It exposed the regime of the Bolsheviks as criminal. In 1922, the bishops who led the ROCOR sent an appeal    Read More

.

May 24, 2007 -- EPISTLE OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX AUTONOMOUS CHURCH - To the God-loving Flock in Christ

The entire Orthodox world can now bear witness to the fact that the prophetic words of the holy Apostle and Evangelist St. John the Theologian as recorded in the Book of Revelation: “And it was given unto the dragon to make war with the saints, and to overcome them” have come to pass.

The study of the Orthodox Faith lies at the foundation of the spiritual life of each man. However, the signing of the Act of Canonical Union be-tween the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) and the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate (MP), who are stained with a multitude of sins from the period of the atheistic madness in Russia, is a huge blow against the Orthodox Faith.

The path leading to perdition upon which    Read More

.

.

The Orthodox world was shocked when, in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras “lifted the anathemas” on their churches. Metropolitan Philaret led the True Orthodox in protesting that this simply could not be done. The anathemas on the Filioque and other Papist heresies were eternally valid, for falsehood remains falsehood for ever; and as long as the Papists confessed these heresies, they fell under the anathemas.

The essential point is this: if an anathema expresses truth, and the bishops who pronounce it are true, then it has power “to the ages of ages”, and nobody can lift it, because   Read More

.

Just as when a clergyman is ordained, it is a public act, so also, when a clergyman’s service to the Church comes to an end, it must be made known publicly. This is so that people may know how to interact with him, and so that they may know that he no longer represents the Church in any way, nor do his actions any longer have any validity as a clergyman.

I have received a letter from Fr. Nicholas Stanosheck, in which Fr. Nicholas has tendered his resignation from the office of deacon, effective Pascha, 2007.

Just as when a man who wishes to divorce his wife must submit a petition for divorce and wait for a higher authority to act upon it, even though he may be separated from his wife, so also a clergyman, who by the service of ordination is “married” to the Church, may be in a state of separation from his service, even though he has not yet been freed from the obligations of his office. We usually call this time a period of suspension.

Fr. Nicholas’ petition is presently going through the appropriate procedures. He no longer represents the ROAC as a clergyman. It is not improper to continue to address him as Father during this time. However, since he is leaving his position by his own volition, I think it is also acceptable to address him simply as a layman, as he himself desires.

.

"We witness, with great sorrow and frustration, that as the rapprochement with the MP progresses, our ROCOR is disintegrating more and more, both externally and internally. We observe with a sad feeling, that many staunch believers of our Church make a decision to no longer be with us. We regret to see the bitter fruits of the unification process: strife, contention at court, dissent, general perplexity; tragic destinies of some believers; loss of trust in our arch pastors; disillusionment often bordering on despair; self-willed behavior of certain bishops not aligned with truth and canons; obvious deviation from the traditional patristic path of ROCOR; heading for unification in spite of the fact that many questions of Sergianism and ecumenism have yet to be dealt with in the light of the pure patristic teaching of the Church. Globalization gains momentum, a tendency for unification of all nations and religions is all too apparent. Holy Fathers warned us of this time, and interpreted it as an unleashed preparation for the coming of the anti-Christ.    Read More

I. On the eve of the fall of the Communist regime it seemed possible that the previous cause of the ecclesiastical division-the atheistic government-was already falling away, and that the rest of our problems would be resolved in a fraternal dialogue. The Council of Bishops repeatedly referred to this idea in its epistles, and in actual fact strove to open paths to this fellowship. In this, however, great difficulties were encountered,    Read More

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    Read More

Почему вл. Валентин ушел из � ПЦЗ? — Потому, что он стал ненужным препятствием на пути начавшегося сближения � ПЦЗ с Московской Патриархией и еретиками-экуменистами. Известный канонист Зарубежной Церкви вл. Григорий (Граббе) написал в одном из своих докладов, что Синод � ПЦЗ «сделал абсолютно все возможное для того, чтобы вынудить � оссийских Преосвященных    Read More

Some of the faithful are being confused by assertions that the ROCOR must necessarily unite with the MP at this time or face dire consequences. These consequences include losing ROCOR’s canonical foundation, creating a schism in the Church, becoming a sect, losing respect in the eyes of the world, partaking in the heresy of Donatism, etc. The positive reasons for immediate union are usually given as the claim that Communism has fallen in Russia, the MP has completely renounced “Sergianism” as well as Ecumenism and above all, that Russia, the long suffering Russian people and the MP need the ROCOR now. In other words, the best way for ROCOR to help the Russian people is to unite with the MP now. If they don’t do it now, ROCOR will not get another chance, and will become a sect and earn the contempt of the world.

It is worthwhile at this time to sort out some of these assertions in the light of historical fact and to focus clearly on the real issues at hand.

Donatism has nothing to do with why the Russian Orthodox Church, whether abroad or in catacombs cannot join the organization that calls itself the ROC, MP. Donatism was a heresy that taught that the sacraments performed by a priest or bishop of    Read More

“In the near future, we expect to start seeing a gradual confiscation of ROAC churches and their transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate,” affirm Alexander Verkhovsky and Olga Sibireva, authors of a lecture entitled “Problems Concerning the achievement of Freedom of Conscience in Russia in 2006”. The lecture, prepared by the informational/analytical center “SOVA”, was delivered in Moscow on March 22nd.

The problems concerning the real estate of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) is an illustration of that part of the document where support for religious organizations that enjoy a “privileged” status by the government will be realized by the control of property.

“The main form of material assistance for religious organizations on the part of the government    Read More

In a recent letter from Metropolitan Valentine, he spoke about a certain priest who was visiting him from the city of Zheleznovodsk, where the local government took their church property away from them and transferred it to the Moscow Patriarchate.

"The parish was finally permitted to re-register (re-incorporate) there, but the local police will not let him serve. They recently called him into the police station and asked him what right he had to pray and serve in his own home? They are threatening him with fines and other punishments. Such are our laws now!"

.

Without the knowledge or blessing of their ruling hierarch, Alexander Soldatov and Sergei Suvorov, both members of ROAC, established the socalled “group initiative” in the name of the “clergy, monastics, and laity,” and began to foment sedition against the decisions of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church, collecting signatures in the church of the Holy Martyred Tsar Nicholas in Moscow.

Alexander Soldatov and Sergei Suvorov “laity,” as well as the so-called “monastics” Tatiana Senina and Olga    Read More

MONITORING THE MEDIA:Three anniversaries. The MP solemnly noted Sergius Stragorodsky's anniversary, after beginning the gradual preparation of their flock for his "canonization".

In January-February of 2007 in many dioceses of Moscow Patriarchate celebrations occurred on the occasion of the 140th anniversary of the birthday of its "father-founder", the author of the Declaration of 1927: the first Soviet Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodskogo), put in this post in 1943 by the God-hating tyrant Stalin's order. As the official Internet site of the MP "Pravoslaviye.Ru" noted in its eulogy: "January 24 sees the accomplishment of 140 years since the birthday of the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Sergius (Stragorodsky - 1867-1944).    Read More