The Demise of ROCOR, the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel,

and the Ecclesiology of the Cyprianite “Synod in Resistance”

Further Reflections

I would like to continue exploring this historical subject of the

recent destruction of the old Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia,
in order to derive thereby a few lessons for the present course of
True Orthodoxy. There are three sections to the present article,
followed by a conclusion: A. The three “camps” in the old ROCOR and
their interaction, B. The introduction of Cyprianism as a tool of
destruction, C. The “royal path” concept and its purported relationship
to ecclesiology, D. A proposal to the ROCOR-A.

A. There were three “camps” in the old ROCOR, and their

interaction can be studied to understand the fall of 2007.

These three "camps" were:

1. The "Left Wing" – This group never saw much wrong with the
MP and World Orthodoxy, but admitted that it was imprudent to deal
directly with the MP as long as the old-style, violent communists were
in power, and inarticulately perceived that ecumenism was not in good
taste but certainly not an impediment to concelebrating with the
"Orthodox" involved in it, as long as they were not the non-ROCOR
Russian groups, with whom there was a temporary, purely political
obstacle to concelebration.

As soon as "the Wall came down," these clerics simply panted

to come in out of the cold and be warmed by the glow of Official-
ness. There was a big party going on, and they did not want to be
left out of it. If being with the MP meant also being with the
Antiochians, who are in communion with the Monophysites, or being
with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which believes above all in radical
environmentalism and the sacraments of the Pope, or being with the
OCA, where it is permitted to venerate Francis of Assisi, deny the
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and question the Ever-Virginity of
the Theotokos, well, so what? This feels so good, how could it be
bad?
 Unlike the “Right Wing,” the “Left Wing” never faltered in their
vision for the future of ROCOR, which may be summarized in three
points:

a. The historical national institutions of “World Orthodoxy” are

necessarily, inalienably, and forever the CHURCH, regardless of their
participation in ecumenism or any other -ism. No matter what heresies
they preach, to be separate from them is to be outside the Church

b. We are unavoidably separated outwardly from the Moscow

Patriarchate- and by extension World Orthodoxy - due only to the
temporary barrier of Cold War politics, which is completely extrinsic to
any concerns related to the confession of the Faith.

c. When these purely extrinsic political circumstances change, if

we do not join the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy, we will
be outside the Church.

2. The "Right Wing" – These men saw clearly that the MP was
no longer an unwilling captive, but rather a new entity substantially
different from the pitiful, captive compromisers of the pre-World War II
era: a sacrilegious, alchemical transmogrification, a surreal caricature
of a Church, combining Orthodox with non-Orthodox, even occult,
elements, and completely subservient to the domestic and foreign
policy goals of whatever demoniacally criminal element was in power
in Moscow - communist, neo-communist, fascist, neo-capitalist, anti-
western, pro-western, nationalist, internationalist, whatever.

This "Right Wing" also saw clearly that the rest of "official" state
church "Orthodoxy" was likewise subservient to apostate, militantly
post-Christian criminal elements, whether on the "Western" or "Eastern"
side of the artificial Cold War dichotomy, and that its leaders were no
longer Christians in any meaningful sense. Apostates, utterly overturned
inwardly in their philosophical foundations and thought processes,
being either cynical criminals (like Patriarch Bartholomew, for example)
or pitiful dupes subject to profound spiritual delusion (like the late
Patriarch Paul of Serbia, for example), these patriarchs and leading
hierarchs saw (and to this day, see) no contradiction between making
public Orthodox and anti-Orthodox statements on a regular, alternating
basis, decrying ecumenism one day and praying with heretics (or, for
that matter, non-Christians) the next, and, like the MP, were (and to
this day, are) in the process of creating an attractive, surreal neo-
Orthodoxy - beautiful services, Byzantine choir conferences,
educational and publishing efforts, excellent iconography, beautiful
coffee-table books, aggressively advertised "holy elders", etc. - an
"Orthodoxy" that is simultaneously beautiful outwardly and empty
inwardly, slavishly content to be one more option on the cafeteria
menu of Traditional World Religions and crafted precisely to fit neatly
into the Department of Legalized Cults in the New World Order.

The ROCA "Right Wing", gradually recognizing all this, proceeded

in the 1960's from making individual protests to the "World Orthodox"
(the "Sorrowful Epistles") and discouraging concelebration with them, to
overt and public synodal action:
a. The recognition in 1969 of the Auxentios Synod, which was
at least an implicit challenge to the legitimacy of the new calendar
Greek Church,
b. The 1970 Ukase replacing chrismation with baptism as the
normal method for receiving Roman Catholic and Protestant converts,
which was a direct challenge to the ecclesiological presuppositions of
ecumenism,
c. The 1971 cheirothesia for the Matthewites, which further
intensified the challenge to the Greek new calendarists, and finally, but,
as we shall see, ineffectively, 4. the 1983 Anathema.

In 1974, at the IIIrd All Diaspora Sobor held at Jordanville,

though the "Right Wing" wanted to issue a definitive condemnation of
the ecumenists, when they were threatened with schism by Anthony of
Geneva and the "Left Wing," they settled for a statement that left
open the possibility that the World Orthodox might be outside the
Church, but abdicated the responsibility for the definitive statement of
this reality to a future ecumenical council. This laid the groundwork for
the 1986 Nativity Encyclical of Metropolitan Vitaly, which effectively
voided the 1983 Anathema, and, finally, for the 1994 decision
regarding Cyprianism, which moved the ROCOR from the 1974 position
that "we do not know if the ecumenists are outside the Church" to the
position that "we do know that the ecumenists are inside the Church."

I propose that the high water mark of the Right Wing's influence
was, therefore, not 1983, but rather the period immediately before the
1974 Sobor. From that point on, it was all downhill, despite the 1983
Anathema, because the 1974 statement denied the authority of a
Local Synod to anathematize anyone, and it was never subsequently
overturned. From 1974 to the repose of Met. Philaret in late 1985,
they were fighting a rearguard action. The 1983 Anathema proclaims
the truth, and its spiritual effect cannot be doubted: Those who fall
under it are in fact anathematized, whether they believe so or not. But
as a disciplinary and didactic tool to prevent the apostasy of most of
the ROCOR, the Anathema failed, because the interpretation put on it
by the 1986 Nativity Encyclical prevented the ROCOR authorities from
applying it to those who actually were guilty of the heresy which the
anathema condemned. This interpretation, however, cannot be blamed
solely on its author, Metropolitan Vitaly, for his approach found a
precedent in the 1974 declaration.

When Bishop Gregory and Abp. Antony of Los Angeles were

staying at the home of a long-time ROCOR clergyman while attending
the 1992 North American clergy conference in Cleveland, they both
told their host that soon the Russian Church Abroad would be no
more, that, in essence, the fight was already lost. They knew that the
1992 conference was the first open move in the operation to
brainwash the clergy into the MP union. This phase of the operation
was now possible, because after the removal of the Met.
Philaret/Grabbe administration in January of 1986, the fight over
matters of principle was already lost, and it became simply a matter
of time, of working out the details. The final rearguard action was
really in the years 1974 through 1985. The seeming rearguard action
of the Met. Vitaly administration was, in retrospect, an exercise in
futility, for two conditions necessary to a real opposition by the Right
Wing had been destroyed by the removal of an effective leader at the
synodal administration in the person of Bishop Gregory, in January
1986, and by the crippling of the 1983 Anathema achieved in the
Nativity Encyclical of December (OS) 1986.

It is not for us to judge the great men of this “Right Wing,” who
number among themselves at least one saint. It behooves us, however,
to recognize that this idea that only an ecumenical council can
declare heretics to be heretics is a strait-jacket that prevented the
ROCOR from defending itself and will do the same to anyone who
adopts it.

3. The "Broad Mainstream" - This was by far the largest of the

three groups. It consisted of hierarchs, clergy, and laity who
instinctively knew that the MP was internally very bad - not just
"captive and oppressed" - and that they wanted to have nothing to do
with it, but would not or could not articulate why. The OCA and
Evlogians were the "Russians we are not with" and therefore outside
the pale. As for the rest of World Orthodoxy, this was really not a
concern, since they were not Russians, anyway, and therefore if Met.
Philaret says do not serve with them, well, it's not that big a loss,
though we rather like the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates, and it's
nice to serve with them sometimes, because that makes us feel better
- more "official." As long as we have beautiful services and our priests
are sweet and old-fashioned and pious, we are happy. There is no
big rush to join the MP or World Orthodoxy officially, though we are
not sure why we shouldn't, if push comes to shove. "Our Church"
(nasha tserkov) is guaranteed to go on forever (as Met. Vitaly once
asserted in an encyclical), and nothing can really harm it.

In other words, these were people who were instinctively pious,

patriotically Russian, anti-communist, and old-fashioned (all excellent
and praiseworthy traits) but did not see the larger Church situation or
understand patristic ecclesiology. "The bells are ringing, the pop is
serving, the choir is singing...it MUST be Church!" They had no
ideological foundation on the basis of which either to accept or to
oppose joining World Orthodoxy, and they felt no need to do either.
When the time came for the young, well funded, growing, consistent,
articulate, well organized, and energized Left Wing to make its Big
Push in the 1990's and post-2000's, and the elderly, under-funded,
dwindling, inconsistent, inarticulate, disorganized, and dispirited Right
Wing could not match the Left's propaganda operation, the Broad
Mainstream was easy prey.

B. The Cyprianite Union was part of the KGB operation for the
destruction of the Russian Church Abroad.

Only a naive person would sincerely deny that the MP "union"

was the result of a systematic infiltration and subversion operation by
the Russian government, whose covert phase had lasted for decades,
leading up to the public phase begun with the propaganda surrounding
the Millenium of the Baptism of Rus' celebrations in 1988. I wonder if
even leading MP apologists such as the noted archpriests John Shaw
(now Bishop Jerome of Manhattan) or Alexander Lebedev would even
take the trouble to deny this any longer, though no doubt they would
claim that it was, nonetheless, the work of the Holy Spirit, with Putin
in the role of St. Constantine or St. Vladimir. Furthermore, only an
uninformed person would deny that Archbishop Mark and Archbishop
Laurus were the leading agents of this operation at the open,
hierarchical level.

It so happens that - mirabile dictu - the same Archbishop Mark

and Archbishop Laurus were the chief engineers of the union with the
Synod in Resistance. Since their brief, their assignment, their final
goal, their brass ring, had always been, long prior to 1994, capitulation
to the MP, they would not have engineered the SiR union if it had not
served this final goal, this consummation devoutly to be desired above
all others, submission to the Moscow Patriarchate. How did the SiR
union fit into their plans?

1. It finally shut the door on reconciliation with the actual

synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece.

2. It moved the official ROCOR position from "we do not know

if the ecumenists are inside or outside the Church" (the 1974 position)
to "we do know that the ecumenists are inside the Church" (the new,
1994 position). This is not insignificant. It is a fundamental change, a
conclusive move to the left: A miracle of terminological legerdemain
has translated notorious heretics from unmapped and perilous
hinterlands to the secure bosom of the Church. Abp. Mark, his helpers
like Fr. Alexander Lebedev, et al, are intelligent men who understood
this perfectly. The Cyprianite ecclesiology was a powerful idea which
Abp. Mark and his fellow travelers could conveniently “buy off the shelf
readymade” to use as a propaganda tool in their brainwashing
campaign, and then throw away the “package” (the Synod in
Resistance) when the “product” was used up.

Once this new official position was in place, and the only
remaining objections to inter-communion were the complicated,
legalistic, and - to the ordinary person - incomprehensible arguments
put forth in the Cyprianite position papers, it was child's play to move
the Broad Mainstream and a critical mass of the Right Wing from "we
know the ecumenists are in the Church" to "therefore we should be in
communion with them."

A conversation I had with Fr. Alexey Young in the late 1990's

illustrates this. Fr. Alexey, a well-known writer and missionary, was my
co-pastor at All Saints of Russia Church in Denver. At that time, of
course, we were having many discussions about the question of
dialogue and ultimately inter-communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.
Finally, one day, Fr. Alexey turned to me and said, “Our own bishops
have now stated that they have grace; how can we not be in
communion with them?” I had to admit that it was a very good
question.

Previously, as a loyal (and perhaps the best known) disciple of

Fr. Seraphim Rose, Fr. Alexey Young had adhered to the position of
the “Royal Path” taught by Fr. Seraphim – that the True Orthodox
hierarchs do not know whether the ecumenists are inside or outside
the Church. But now, post-1994, there was a new position to the Left
of the Royal Path, which Fr. Alexey was bound to follow in obedience
to a synodal definition of his bishops: We know that, even if they are
heretics, they are in the Church.

C. The “Royal Path” concept

The apologists for today's ROCOR-A synod do not really believe

in the Cyprianite ecclesiology. What they really believe in is this “Royal
Path” approach, which was popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose in the
1970's. Where did the Royal Path metaphor originate?

The image of the "Royal Path" is first spoken of in the Second

Conference of Abba Moses, found in the Conferences of St. John
Cassian, regarding Discretion (diakrisis). Abba Moses speaks of the
royal path of moderation in ascetical exercise - fasting, vigils, etc. The
Fathers did not apply this moral concept (pan metron ariston –
everything in moderation) to the dogmas, because Truth, unlike
prudent ascetical activity, is not a mean between extremes. St. Mark of
Ephesus, in an epistle to Gennadius Scholarius, stated the truth of this
matter with his characteristic clarity: “There is no middle way in
matters of faith.”

To apply this to our times: Orthodoxy is not a mean between

ecumenism and dogmatic Truth, nor is there a mean between being in
the Church and being out of the Church. There is no mean between
being a bishop and not being a bishop. There is no “middle state”
lying in the center of the Royal Path between being a Christian and
being a heretic. Therefore we cannot apply the “Royal Path” metaphor
to a supposed knowledge of a “middle state” such as the “ailing in
faith” category in the Cyprianite ecclesiology.
 The decision by bishops as to when publicly to declare certain
men heretics and to cut them off from the communion of the Church,
is, however, not a dogma, but a prudential decision based on
knowledge of the dogmas and knowledge of the facts involved in the
case. We may disagree with the contention of the old ROCOR that it
was prudent not to make a clear declaration of the status of World
Orthodoxy, but we must admit that it is a prudential judgment, and
therefore the Royal Path metaphor can apply. The belief, however, that
only an ecumenical council has the competence to make such a
judgment is not “moderate”; it is simply mistaken. Furthermore, using
the “Royal Path” concept to justify never changing one's position on
the matter of cutting off heretics is a misuse of the concept, because
prudential judgments are, of their nature, subject to recurring review in
light of new evidence.

In his landmark essay, “Is the Grace of God Present in the

Soviet Church?” the notable confessor of the Faith and professor of
theology I.M. Andreyev concluded that there was, in his time,
compelling evidence that the MP was graceless, but that the “time had
not yet come” to declare this. He wrote this in 1948. Come, let us be
honest. It is now 2010, and the MP has now fully revealed itself, as
has all of “World Orthodoxy.” Do ROCOR-A still insist that they are
staying on the “Royal Path” by refusing to adjust their evaluation of
our situation in light of all the new evidence that has come our way
since 1948? To insist stubbornly on such a course seems rather
immoderate.

D. A proposal to ROCOR-
ROCOR-A

In light of everything said above, I propose that the leadership

of ROCOR-A take three subjects under serious consideration:

1. The theory of Met. Cyprian is not the “historic position of

the Church Abroad” prior to 1994, and therefore the statement of the
1994 Sobor, that the ROCOR and the SiR had an identical
ecclesiological understanding, is incorrect and should be re-
re-evaluated.
The position of the Church Abroad, historically, was articulated clearly
by I.M. Andreyev in the above-mentioned 1948 article on the presence
of grace in the Soviet church. (Andreyev's article, in light of events
since 1948, can also be applied appropriately to all of what is called
“World Orthodoxy.”) Professor Andreyev concludes that there is
compelling evidence that the church body under the Soviet hierarchy is
not the Church of Christ, and that it does not administer the true
Holy Mysteries. As a matter of prudence, however, he cautions
against making a public proclamation of this reality, pending further
events. He does not, however, preclude the possibility that the Soviet
church is, in fact, apart from any proclamation, already outside the
Church.

The stance is one of a private conviction accompanied by a

publicly held uncertainty dictated by prudence.

I experienced this in action, many times, in the Russian Church

Abroad, in the presence of the older hierarchs and clergy: both the
private conviction (that the sergianists and ecumenists were outside
the Church) and the publicly held uncertainty dictated by prudence.
One memorable example took place at the 1992 North American
clergy conference in Cleveland, attended by a very large and
representative portion of the clergy of the American and Canadian
dioceses, at which the pro-MP forces, still covert but already in action,
were stirring up discussion about “grace in the MP.” Finally,
Metropolitan Vitaly became exasperated, stood up, and, slowly pointing
his finger around the room, said, Each of you in this room knows,
deep down in his heart, that there is no grace in the Moscow
Patriarchate. It was a stunning moment; each man in the room must
have known in his heart that this was indeed the Holy Spirit speaking
prophetically, not so much through Vladika as our first hierarch, but
through Vladika as a prophetic elder, speaking heart to heart and man
to man. At that moment, everyone in the room was convicted, judged,
in the arena of conscience. Then he sat down.

This is the same Metropolitan Vitaly who wrote, in December of

1986, that the Russian Church Abroad does not take it upon herself
to proclaim anyone not under her direct jurisdiction, outside the
Church. Private conviction, public uncertainty.
uncertainty

This is not, however, the position of the Synod in Resistance.

They claim to have positive knowledge that today's heretical hierarchs
are, in fact, still within the saving enclosure of the Church, retain the
grace of genuine episcopal consecration, and validly administer the
Holy Mysteries. They teach that if one does not believe this, one is
not only imprudent but erring in Faith! They proclaim this publicly.
This is obviously not the position described above.
 To identify the positive position of the SiR with the cautious,
uncertain “Royal Path” attitude held by the Russian Church Abroad
prior to 1994 is a mistake.
mistake Until 1994, whether or not the ecumenist
heretics had already left the Church was an open question. After 1994,
it was settled: the heretics remain in the Church. From this point on,
the ecclesiological phronema of the ROCOR clergy and faithful who
previously might have resisted the MP union degenerated rapidly, and
this contributed to the sad outcome with which we are all too familiar.

2. The “Royal Path” image is a metaphor for an approach to

dealing with matters of prudence, not a position on matters of
knowledge. As stated above, we find the “Royal Path” image in the
Fathers when they are dealing with matters requiring diakrisis,
discretion. It is an approach to making practical decisions, not a fixed
epistemological position or a final disciplinary judgment.

The Russian Church Abroad, then, historically, even during most

of Met. Philaret's reign, found it imprudent – whether correctly or
incorrectly - to declare that today's heretics are outside the Church,
but did not preclude the possibility that they are, indeed, already
ontologically outside the Church.

Prudence and discretion, however, at some point, may dictate

that, on the basis of further evidence, and in light of practical needs,
one should change one's publicly stated position on a matter of
knowledge and render a new practical judgment. Is this not abundantly
illustrated by countless examples from sacred and secular history, and
indeed by the experience of our daily lives?

I ask the leadership of ROCOR-A to apply their diakrisis to this

proposal: The evidence accumulated in the decades since the 1974
Sobor indicates that it is, in fact, prudent, that is, completely within
the Royal Path,
Path to state that the heretics are, in fact, simply outside
the Church.

3. The idea that only an ecumenical council can cut off

heretics from the Church is a mistake. Today's True Orthodox and
the Russian Church in particular, should not be burdened with the
1974 All Diaspora Sobor's decision to leave this matter to an
ecumenical council. The mistake is understandable, and indeed we
sympathize with and admire those who made it, who were certainly
men of greater spiritual stature than we, but it was, nonetheless, a
mistake. The history of the Church contains examples of local councils
and even individual Fathers who cut off heretics from the communion
of the Church. Discretion – diakrisis, the authentic walking on the
Royal Path - dictates that, for the salvation of souls, our local Church
authorities make a public statement that today's heretics are, in fact,
outside the Church.

Priest Steven Allen

Church of St. Spyridon
Detroit, Michigan USA

15 August 2010 OS
Feast of the Assumption