About Heretics and Schismatics
World Orthodoxy
Matthewites
GOC Makarios (Lamian Synod)
Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA)
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)
Metropolis of the Mediterranean and Islands (Christopher and Christopher)
True Orthodox Church - Moscow Metropolia (Alexy)
More Articles About the False Orthodox
Cyprianites
– Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece (GOC Kallinikos/HOTCA)
– Synod in Resistance (HSIR)
– Romanian Old Calendar Orthodox Church (Slatioara)
– Serbian True Orthodox Church (STOC)
– Old Calendar Bulgarian Church (Photii)
– ROCOR Vitaly (ROCIE/ROCA Vladimir)
- Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC Tikhonites)
- Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (Anthony Orlov)
- Russian Church Abroad (Agafangel)
– Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America (Milan Synod)
– Synod of the True Orthodox Church of the Patristic Calendar (Avlona Synod)
Jehovah’s Witnesses
Monophysites
Protestants
Roman Catholics
Non-Christians
Non-Christians Introduction
BuddhismFreemasonry
Hinduism
Islam
Judaism
Mormonism
Socialism
A Short Letter Explaining
Why ROCIE (ROCOR-V) is Uncanonical
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: To Br. John -Fw: Why Met. Vitaly is Uncanonical
Dear Subdeacon Jerjis,
Evlogeite.
I apologize for being so slow in getting back to you. We have had a lot of distractions here
lately, as you know.
I think what you wrote covers almost all points fairly well, but I would make one correction and
one addition.
Since this list appears to refer to acts which make ROCIE Vitaly non-canonical, I would alter
reason #1 to say that he came “under his own anathema”, as Bp. Gregory Grabbe wrote,
by consciously communicating with and explicitly agreeing with those who taught that the Church
is divided among heretics and Orthodox, that the former’s mysteries are effectual for
salvation, etc. - this includes Cyprian of Fili who explicitly teaches this in his
“Position Paper” and elsewhere, and it applies as well to the official communion of
ROCOR with the Serbs and Jerusalem. The former began in 1994 when the ROCOR, having reviewed the
“Position Paper”, endorsed it and said that Cyprian’s teaching was the same as
their own, and they all concelebrated with him. This is what actually makes Vitaly’s group
uncanonical, whereas his previous vacillations or retreat into ambiguity were signs of personal
decline that let the weed of heresy grow in the episcopate but these vacillations were not the
official ROCOR dogma. The 1994 act of union was an official ROCOR dogmatic act that explicitly
and without ambiguity accepted and endorsed the very teachings and acts that they had
anathematized. What went on before affected his own soul, but did not invalidate the church he
headed –1994 did. This is how I would use the 1983 anathema in this discussion –focus
on the clear transgression in 1994 and thereafter which invalidated ROCOR.
My one addition would be that Vitaly ‘retired’ himself and resigned from his pastoral
and first-hierarchal offices. According to the canonical letter of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, he
cannot reinstate himself, even if he retired only ‘out of fear of heretics’. Only a
council or synod can reinstate him and the most he can hope for is that his successor in office
wants an assistant, in which case the Council allows him to assist at the latter’s request
only, but he still cannot possess any authority of his own to ordain, or to perform other
specifically hierarchal functions. Or he can be given a vacant diocese, but I repeat, not without
a synodal approval. Therefore, he could not unilaterally reinstate Barnabas (vicar-bishop of
Cannes), he could not choose to ordain anyone, and he cannot reinstate himself as ‘head of
the Russian Church’ or appoint himself to rule a diocese, occupied or vacant. Even if
hypothetically Vitaly had not fallen into heresy 8 yrs. earlier, still his retirement or
resignation is sufficient to invalidate him and any hierarchal acts undertaken afterwards. A
self-retired bishop and a canonically-suspended vicar-bishop have no authority to ordain or rule
a diocese, let alone a local church.
And as to the plea that Vitaly has to be able to do so - regardless of the canons - to save the
Church because the ‘Lavrites’ are heretics, Laurus has done nothing out of line with
the course pursued by Vitaly and company until after his retirement. So Vitaly, unless he wishes
to accuse himself of heresy for the past 8 years, is in no position to condemn Laurus as a
heretic and non-bishop. Vitaly is not willing to admit anything more than ‘rashness’
in uniting with Cyprian as he says in the official document relating to this, even though he
disavows the union with him and the communion with World Orthodoxy, all of which he approved
during his tenure as Metropolitan. On these grounds and by such standards, Vitaly could only
allege that his successor was a ‘rash’ man, but not a heretic. Also, let us not
forget that Vitaly revolted before Laurus was able to do anything new at all, other than take
over the ROCOR in the exact place where Vitaly had left it - in heresy and pleading for union
with Moscow - which fact Vitaly has never admitted, saying in an epistle instead that he
‘always had guided the ship of the Church rightly.’ Laurus had done nothing new, but
Vitaly nonsensically condemned him as an ‘apostate’ while still declaring his own
former course ‘right’! I know I am belaboring the point, but it is an important one.
Vitaly rejects Cyprian’s idea that heretics can form a part of the Church or have grace,
and condemns Laurus and co. as apostates and heretics for Vitaly’s ecumenical, pro-Moscow
policies of the past eight years, and yet he will not admit that he himself ever became a
heretic, an apostate, or fell away from the Church and lost grace. This prideful blindness! And
so logically either Vitaly has to admit he did fall away in order to justify coming out of
retirement uncanonically (in which case he still does not have grace) or he has to accept that
Laurus is not a heretic or apostate (in which case he has no justification for uncanonically
reinstating himself and seizing Laurus’ headship of ROCOR and so he is a schismatic and
lacks grace still). So, I hope you can see my point and reduce my long-winded writing to
something useful for you.
Also, one further note, as far as ‘retirement’ being uncanonical, I would say rather
that forcible retirement, that is involuntary retirement by an outside authority, is uncanonical
and foreign to Orthodoxy. It amounts to a deposition or removal from active office without trial
and this is forbidden by the Canons - see, for instance, the 16th canon of the 1st-2nd Council in
the Rudder. Vitaly founded this uncanonical practice (or perhaps Metropolitan Sergius did).
However, for an enfeebled old Metropolitan to voluntarily retire from his duties is not entirely
foreign to Orthodoxy - Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy retired from his duties and left them to
St. Metropolitan Philaret in 1964, less than a year before the former’s repose.
Again, I am sorry for not responding sooner.
In Christ,
Br. John
|
Archbishop Gregory Dormition Skete P.O. Box 3177 Buena Vista, CO 81211-3177 USA |
Contact: Archbishop Gregory
In a New Window. |
|
|
Copyright 2005 All rights reserved. |