Statement from the Chairman

A Statement from the Chairman of the ISCA of the ROCOR Bishop Agathangel
A Statement from the Chairman of the Interim Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Bishop Agafangel of Tavrichesk and Odessa.

I am not pursuing the objective of uniting all the fragments of Orthodoxy.
The period of time we are now undergoing is marked by a striving to unite many of the Orthodox who currently exist as separate entities. In and of itself this is a praiseworthy endeavor. However in order that this intention become a reality, it must unavoidably be strengthened by an inner rearrangement of values, i.e. through repentance. In order to be lifted to a new spiritual plane, to a truly positive level of interaction or even unity, we may accomplish this only through repentance and to some degree through transforming our inner essence.

Those who are currently proposing the initiative of reconciliation suggest that everyone unite “as they are” (which in and of itself is quite primitive and looks very much like a type of “alternative” ecumenism). Unfortunately, we are too different to unite in such a direct manner. Therefore, I see for myself a current priority to be not the unification of the Church’s disjointed parts, but primarily preserving faithfulness to the principles of spiritual life which formed in the Russian Church in the abroad, as well as the strengthening and confirming of these principles. In other words, the main goal for us right now is the preservation of the traditional Russian Church Abroad.

Out of all the parts of the Russian Church, spiritual succession of the historic Local Russian Church has been preserved only by the ROCOR. The Moscow Patriarchate under the close patronage of the theomachists was broken and was not capable of carrying the Legacy of the fathers of the Russian and Universal Church in all required fullness, while the Catacomb Church, as a result of persecutions, unprecedented in the history of the Church, withered inside the godless cordon, not being regenerated with fresh, healthy forces from the people. Only the Church Abroad became the fully-fledged and full-blooded keeper of patristic Tradition during that period of time. This Tradition primarily involves the passing on of the living Orthodox faith and practices from one generation to the next, i.e. the very condition of the Orthodox soul. In the Orthodox Church this thread of spiritual succession stretches unbroken from the Lord Himself and His apostles to us who live now. Thanks to the Russian Church Abroad it remains unbroken even at the current time despite all the efforts of the theomachist-communists.

In order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, in order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, this norm and goal is the Russian Church Abroad in its condition under our ever memorable First Hierarchs, metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret and Vitaly. And therefore we may only unite with those who wish to remain or desire to join the spiritual heritage of the Church Abroad, and through this heritage, the Holy Tradition of the Universal Church. For this reason we are forced to protect ourselves from those who could introduce a foreign spirit and different practice into our church enclosure. Hence, in the current phase I consider it possible to enter into discussions of union only with those for whom our Russian Church Abroad is dear, and not with the multiple “sister churches”. Therefore in accordance with the aforesaid I consider that for the sake of re-establishing the oneness of ROCOR, repentance is indispensable for those who have in some way stepped away from that Tradition, not excluding myself as well in that regard if this is demonstrated to me convincingly or if I suddenly see my own transgression.

In this manner, summarizing the above, I will repeat myself: the center of unification can only be Living Holy Tradition, which for us, the faithful sheep of the Russian Church Abroad is the history and life of ROCOR. We cannot consider any imaginary or newly created, newly invented “jurisdictions”. (For instance that same RTOC does not have a tradition of spiritual heritage, besides the life it experienced in schism from 2001 onward.)


I am grateful to the representatives of the RTOC for attempting to point out to me what they feel are my inadequacies – our supposed union with a “neo-occult sect of D. Korchinsky” and the commemoration of the Ukrainian civil authorities (this refers only to their latest letter, since in their previous writings they saw far more inadequacies). As well in that letter, RTOC representatives presented me with an ultimatum: “Our refusal to commemorate the civil authorities in divine services and our rejection of the ‘Korchinsky sect’ as well as dubious persons and forces (as I understood they are implying I reject ‘collaboration with the CIA’ - +B.A) are contingencies directly linked to a possible future dialogue and union”. But these claims made against us by RTOC, as always, are contrived. We are not in any union with any neo-occult sects nor have we ever been. The fact that a group of youth belongs to the political party “Brotherhood” and wishes to found a parish within our Church may in no way be considered a crime, and I have no intention of expelling them from ROCOR to please RTOC (incidentally this demand, even though it was presented as a wish was already made to me by Ukrainian officials; and again in this case there appears to be a strange synchronized action by the officials and RTOC*). The program and ideology of this political party never and in no way influenced us nor can it ever influence us. The commemoration of civil authorities is one of the traditions of the Russian (Rus’) Orthodox Church and I see nothing criminal in praying for those who rule the country in such a way that they do not interfere in our internal church life and attempt as much as possible to protect the freedom of conscience of its citizens. The prayerful commemoration of a state which does not persecute the Church of Christ, but on the contrary gave asylum to Russian refugees and gave them an opportunity to live freely and prosper – such is also one of the traditions of ROCOR and we do not intent to reject it to please RTOC. Our parishes in Byelorus, Moldava and the Russian Federation, where the regime violates its own laws governing religion in one form or another, do not commemorate the regime in divine services.

Meanwhile, I also have some questions for the RTOC representatives, but not in the format which they proposed in their letter to me; austensibly being prepared to repent, for “supposedly we (i.e. RTOC - +B.A.) took advantage of the distressed situation of the Church Abroad in order to satisfy our ambitions and organize a church group ‘under us’”. Although this indeed was and is occurring, it is not the main object of my concern. I am far more disturbed, for example, by the very path and practice of RTOC. I am prepared not to bring up its premature inception and its seven-year existence in schism from ROCOR. I can, as they say, “grit my teeth” and forget even all the subsequent anti-canonical actions of this group (including deceipt and speculation over Metropolitan Vitaly’s directives, as well as the unilateral proclamation of their own Synod which can only be formed by a decision of the supreme Church authority; this includes also proclaiming themselves to be a new church, separate from ROCOR, supposedly in the catacombs.) But even this is not what disturbs me the most. Mostly I am grieved by the constant deliberate falsehood in the actions and publications of RTOC, lies aimed at discrediting others and enhancing their own popularity. (I am convinced that this is also the intent of their last letter to me and Bishop Daniel.) One can forgive many things and disregard much for the sake of reconciliation and unity. But what does one do with these lies? Must one reconcile with them too? I am convinced that namely this is unacceptable and impermissible for us.

Therefore my sentiments to RTOC representative are that they carefully read over their voluminous writings (which they, incidentally, not sparing the expense, have sent by mail to all of our clergy without exception), and determine the source of the lies which these writings abundantly contain and finally cut off this fowl flow. Otherwise our dialogue will not yield, nor can it yield good fruits based only on good intentions.

Of course a union with whomever, whenever and on what terms is not for me to decide, but for our supreme Church authority, which has not yet been formed. I have merely expressed my view of our church union, desired by all. In the current phase I am convinced that we may receive representatives of the RTOC into our Church only through repentance and in the rank they occupied at the moment they split from ROCOR.

+Bishop Agafangel
Odessa, May 27/June 9, 2007
St. John the Russian, Confessor

*An example of other strange synchronized actions of the civil authorities and RTOC was the joint, most active endeavor to ruin ROCOR, and in the same context, the joint, active slander campaign against me together with the strange increase in the popularity of RTOC on the internet among pro-soviet and pro-mp activists. +B.A.

Forum argument addressed to Whiteford et al

From: "Athanasios Jayne"  
Date: Mon Jun 4, 2007 11:43 pm 
Subject: Heresy Alone?

"It is not possible to teach the word of truth completely
if one thinks that he has the right Faith, but is not
guided by the divine Canons." (St. Theodore the Studite,
Epistle I.30)

Dear Fr. John (Whiteford) et al,

On many past occasions, Father, you and others have
forcefully asserted that the *only* legitimate and
Canonical reason for leaving one's Bishop is *heresy*

However, it appears that you have overlooked the example
of St. Theodore the Studite and St. Platon of Sakkoudion
in this connection. St. Theodore and St. Platon (as you
may recall), broke Communion with their Bishop (St. Tarasios
of Constantinople, who presided over the Seventh Ecumenical
Council), solely on the basis of St. Tarasios' Canonical
*inaction,* and for no heresy whatsoever.

This event was known as the "Moechian Controversy."
In 795, Emperor Constantine VI, who wished to marry his
mother Irene's lady-in-waiting, Theodota, divorced his
wife Maria and forced her to enter a convent. St.
Tarasios was opposed to this adulterous union, and refused
to give it his blessing. However, he failed to take
disciplinary action against Joseph, the Oikonomos (Steward)
of Hagia Sophia and Abbot of the Kathara Monastery, who
performed the wedding, which many churchmen, among them St.
Theodore, considered uncanonical. St. Tarasios tried to
have the marriage annulled, but was unable, for the Emperor
threatened to restore the Iconoclast heresy if he forbade the
marriage. St. Theodore and St. Platon of Sakkoudion, his
spiritual Father and one of the Fathers of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council, resisted the unlawful union and BROKE
face of such disregard for Canonical order. They suffered
exile and imprisonment for two years, until Empress Irene
seized the throne in 797 and recalled them from banishment.

The controversy stirred again in 806 when, at the request
of Emperor Nicephoros I, the new Patriarch St. Nicephoros I
rehabilitated the erring Abbot Joseph as a reward for his
efforts in mediating a revolt some three years earlier.
St. Theodore and his monks, together with his brother,
Archbishop Joseph of Thessalonica, BROKE COMMUNION WITH
THE PATRIARCH. For this act of resistance, they were
condemned by a Synod in 809 and sent into exile again.
Peace was restored when in 811, Emperor Michael I Rangabe
brought St. Theodore and his disciples back from exile and
had Joseph of Kathara deposed.

Neither of these cases involved a matter of heresy. Rather,
St. Theodore, St. Platon, and Archbishop Joseph, broke
Communion with their lawful Bishop when their Bishop acted
in a manner contrary to the holy Canons--period.

Were they wrong to do so? It seems to me that either you are
mistaken, Father, and one may indeed lawfully break Communion
with one's Bishop on the basis of his uncanonical actions or
inactions (in which case St. Theodore and St. Platon serve
as an example of God-pleasing Orthodox resistance to
uncanonical disorder), or you must hold that St. Theodore
and St. Platon erred and were schismatics.

It is worthy of consideration, I think, to ask: What would
these Saints have done in our own day? What would they have
done if their Bishop and Synod entered into Union with a
Church whose Hierarchs are in full Communion with open
confessors of heresy, and with those who unilaterally
introduce uncanonical and divisive innovations into the
Church? What would St. Theodore have done if his Bishop not
only failed to oppose *one* uncanonical marriage, or allowed
*one* deposed Clergyman to be reinstated, but even failed
to act when Bishops of other Local Churches Synodally
recognized divine Grace in heretical Baptism (such as
the Hierarchs of Antioch and Alexandria have done)? What
would these Saints have done if their Bishop failed to act
when a Local Church, in direct violation of the Ecumenical
Canons, abandoned the Orthodox Paschalion (as the Church
of Finland has done), and instead adopted the Paschalion
of heretics, thus rendering themselves liable to deposition?
What would these Saints have done if their Bishop failed
to act when a Patriarch unilaterally "lifted" Anathemas
rightly decreed and received by the whole Church against
unrepentant and ever-increasingly heretical schismatics
(as the Patriarch of Constantinople has done)? I myself
have no doubt that men like St. Theodore and St. Platon
would have broken Communion with their Bishop if faced
with such grave uncanonical disorder--such culpable
inaction whose grievousness far exceeds that of one
unlawful marriage, or one reinstatement of a deposed

Apostolic Canon XXXI does *not* say that a Priest can only
leave his Bishop for reasons of heresy alone. It says those
who leave their Bishop are guilty if they leave "without
finding anything wrong with the Bishop IN POINT OF PIETY
AND RIGHTEOUSNESS." Apparently, St. Theodore and St. Platon
believed Canonical *inaction* to be a matter "of piety and
righteousness" fully worthy of breaking Communion with one's

Athanasios Jayne

I quoted the historical info. nearly verbatim from
one of the publications of the Center for
Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, which is
copywritten, so unfortunately, Father, I don't
think this would be possible.

Descent from the Cross

RocorMP Descent from Witness
in Russian

“A Descent from the Cross of Orthodox Witness” ~ Bishop Photii of Triaditza
The present document is a sermon by His Eminence, Bishop Photii of Triaditza, delivered during the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of the Ascension of our Savior, in the Cathedral of the Dormition of the Theotokos, in Sofia, Bulgaria (4/17 May 2007). 
The God-Man The Savior came not only to show us the path toward the Truth; He came as one Who was Himself the Truth and the Way to it. Christ the Lord levelled down the walls between earthly humans and the celestial Truth.
Indeed, if we do not rise above the terrestrial dust, if we do not rally courage enough to transcend our own nothingness, and overcome our voluptuous desires for earthly things, we are unable to walk on the path towards the Truth; we are unable to be children of the Truth; and we are unable to live with the Truth and in the Truth.
And the path leading towards the Truth leads all the way upwards, and never downwards, just as Christ’s path led up to Golgotha. Our very first step in rising from the earth to Heaven, our very first rupture with earthly bounds is our ascent upon the cross, as Christ Himself was raised from the earth upon the Cross, in order that He might draw every man toward Himself: toward the Truth, toward the Way, and toward Life.
The path from the cross to Heaven, to immortal life, is indeed sometimes of extensive duration and of long distance—very long;

sometimes it may be traversed in but an instant, as was the case with many of the Holy New Martyrs of Batak, whose memory we celebrate today, together with Christ’s glorious Ascension.
However, there is nothing at all so grievous as one who, having once torn himself away from the earth and ascended his cross, afterwards becomes frightened by the way of the Cross and the Resurrection, or who has been misled by the earthly desire to feel again the earthy dust under his feet.
Lo, today the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad descends from the cross of its Orthodox witness.
Today, by serving the liturgy together, the stage is set for the Church Abroad to be absorbed into the organism of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Lo, today the Archpriests seal their descent from their cross by exchanging a liturgical kiss with those who beckoned them to descend from the cross, as they had themselves done in the past.
How painful is the lie, which in our days calls the descent an ascent, and the fall a rising!
When the Hierarchs of the Church Abroad were raised from the earth on the cross of witnessing for Orthodoxy, they were called schismatics; when they descended from the cross, when they delivered to Cæsar—be he even an ecclesiastical Cæsar— that which belongs to God, they immediately rose in his eyes and became his brethren.
Indeed, is there anything more disheartening than to see how falsehood bedecks itself with the garments of Truth?
Indeed, those who descended from the cross pronounce, and will continue to pronounce, just as many words of fidelity to the Church and Orthodoxy—words glorifying the exploits of the Martyrs and Confessors; but is it really decent to plait wreaths of verbal praise for spiritual heroes, having oneself fled in disgrace from the battlefield?
Is it not immoral, having yourself abandoned your witness to the Truth for the sake of earthly benefits and gains, to glorify persons who held the love of Truth to be higher than their own lives?

And yet, Cæsar will not celebrate his victory for long. He will not be jubilant for long, that what is God’s has been delivered to him by the hands of Bishops, with the sole purpose of acquiring his favor. For God is never mocked! For the God-Man, after His Ascension, abides with us, with all who, even though weak, aspire to tread the path leading upward, and only upward—to Golgotha and the Cross, and thence toward the Heavenly Homeland, from which there pour down on us the streams of the love of the New Martyrs of Batak, of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, and of all the citizens of Heaven, who walked their earthly path in the never-setting light of the Way, the Truth, and the Life! Amen.

When Ignorance Gets Started It Knows No Bounds!

When Ignorance Gets Started It Knows No Bounds!

Priest Victor Dobroff
3/16 June 2007

+ Dear fathers, brothers and sisters!

Here again there has appeared in the path of our salvation another very dangerous stumbling block.  It was outlined recently as a kind of "neo-sergianism of Church Abroad", which offers the faithful of ROCOR a compromise with one of the most fundamental issues related to the Moscow Patriarchia.

It offers after the signing of the Act of May 17, 2007 of the canonical communion of ROCOR with the MP, to remain under Metropolitan Laurus and his Synod and to create a group of parishes, where they will not commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow, but will continue to commemorate in their services their Metropolitan of The Russian Church Abroad.

Before turning to the substance of the matter, it is worth remembering that not commemorating the Patriarch of Moscow is not an unprecedented new action, - it has already happened inside the MP.  Where are all these priests and their parishes, the so-called, truth-seekers? - Were not all the rebels severely punished, and their parishes returned under the control of the MP?  It is safe to predict that a handful of "non-commemorators" of ROCOR should also expect such a fiasco to befall on themselves, with the only difference being that if our Russian brothers tried but could not get out of their cage to obtain the spiritual freedom they so longed for – the ROCOR's dupes with their solemn chants are heading to the cage by their own will.

  Let us now consider the situation of non-commemoration in more detail.

In the fifth section of the "Act of Canonical Communion" it is clearly stated that the Primate of the united Russian Orthodox Church is the Patriarch of the MP.  This Act was approved by the ROCOR Synod, and after the ceremonial signing of it in Moscow the members of our church, that is, those who chose to remain in submission to the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus, essentially must recognize its legitimacy.

Under normal canonical conditions no bishop or priest, independently from his Primate can enter into Catholic space to serve the Divine Liturgy, so therefore the commemoration of the Primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church is imperative, mandatory and is therefore strictly regulated.  The essential condition of the possibility of entering into Catholic space, [catholicity, i.e., belonging to the Universal Church], i.e., the Guarantor of Grace in the Sacraments performed in the church is the church's canonical Primate that is-the head of the local church.  The criterion for a canonical Primate, in turn, is the legitimacy of his Apostolic Succession as well as his genuine Orthodox Faith which professed by him establishes his liturgical relationship with God Himself.

As a general rule, the head of an Autocephalous Church is its' Primate and only in liturgical union with him the entrance into Catholic space is possible.  In order to perform church sacraments the name of the Primate must always be commemorated at the proper times and in the litanies however in the Mystery of Mysteries –  the Holy and Divine Liturgy, this memorial is arranged in a special way: the Order of the Holy and Divine Liturgy prescribes that for the Primate of the Church the serving priest is to withdraw the first remembrance particle from the prosphoron in the Liturgy of the Oblation and to offer up and pronounce out loud his name at the Great Entrance and during the Eucharistic Canon.

ROCOR's Primate status is irrefutable and is recognized in the entire Orthodox world.  Perhaps among the various Primates of other local churches he is the "smallest" of all as mentioned in the humble words of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) in his Sorrowful Epistles to the Ecumenical Throne – but the issue here is not about "comparative importance".  What is truly important is that by establishing a connection to a legitimate Primate his priests are able to administer to the believers the Blessed Mysteries unquestionably Filled with Grace, and therefore the believers are able to have mysterious communion with God.

An irregular state is observed in the Moscow Patriarchia for all its seeming modern amenities and outward impressiveness.  Without calling to remembrance all the vexing questions of the internal life of the MP, not touching on the topic of the questionability (to put it mildly) of consecrations of all its bishops, their stubborn commitment to Ecumenism, all their political justifications for harmlessness of their actual slipping into secularism from True Orthodoxy under the excuses of logic or the subject of new forms of Sergianism, which are already so common in the MP much like a chronic disease.  We find it surprising that in such a deranged canonical society as the MP that the unspeakable mercy of the Creator and His Divine Grace can still be communicated to its members.

  At the moment we only care about one question: whether "non-commemoration" can be the temporary shelter where the faithful of the Church Abroad will be able to ride out this "time of troubles" under "seeming" spiritual safety.

Let us begin with questions relating to the Primate of the MP.  We should note that this question is not connected to their individual personalities. Today, the Primate of the MP is Alexy II (Ridiger) and tomorrow it could very well be Metropolitan Kirill Gundyaev, or some other candidate, but actually it does not really matter.

Without tiring the reader with numerous quotations from the Conciliar and Synodical Definitions and Resolutions of ROCOR, we recall that since 1943, that is, since the very inception of Stalin's MP none of the Soviet Patriarchs including the current Patriarch Alexis II, have ever been recognized as legitimate Patriarchs and hence Primates by the Church Abroad.

It is known that seven years before his election metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) – the future first Soviet Patriarch, was himself part of the schism in the Local Russian Church.  He perpetrated that schism in 1936: when the news of the death of the legal Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa was announced, and he (metropolitan Sergius) without delay, did not relinquish his rights to his (Metropolitan Peter's) deputy, and he did not voluntarily hand over the helm of the Church to Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) who was still alive then and who had been elected as the legitimate Locum Tenens, by Patriarch Tikhon and by the Local Council in 1918.

Thus, violating the will of Patriarch Tikhon and the will of the Russian Orthodox Church – its Local Council, uncanonically, he seized that which did not belong to him – the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, and so the supreme ecclesiastical authority, represented by Metropolitan Sergius and his Moscow Synod, committed schism, by creating a new church structure which was not sanctioned by the Supreme Church Power – The Local Council. Therefore in this canonical separation from the Local Council, the Moscow Synod has lost the main feature of the Orthodox Church – its Catholicity (Sobornost') which is professed by Christians in Article 9 of the Creed of the Orthodox Faith, "I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" (the Nicene Creed).

This undeniable fact of church history is coupled with another equally important event: staying committed in his Schism, in 1943, Metropolitan Sergius was elected as Patriarch – not by the Local Council as prescribed by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1918, but by the Bishops Council.  (Can we call it the Bishops Council - the unanimous voice of a group of scared to death by Stalin bishops, who were delivered for election in Moscow in two days time at the command of the "Great Father and Teacher?" [Joseph Stalin'].  Was it not the "father to all nations" who proclaimed and "blessed" this installation?)  This culminated in the most unfortunate and disastrous event in the history of MP: the spiritual thread of the Lineage of Apostolic Succession of their Primate was torn.  Consequently the Cathedra of Patriarch, the institution of the Soviet Patriarchia from its inception is uncanonically set by a secular (and what is even more tragic – Atheist) government in isolation from the Church represented by its Local Council.

The Moscow Patriarchia – was from its beginning and to this very day a self-formed, self-proclaimed schism created in 1943 as a quasi-church organization by the Soviet government and headed by an uncanonical illegitimate Primate – and from these facts the following conclusions are directly related to our topic.  It would seem at first glance that the non-commemoration of an uncanonical Primate might be the most effective resolution to this quagmire – however, let us look more closely.

The Great Gift of God to be the Primate in the Church, as with any of His gifts requires the utmost vigilance and care on the part of the recipient in order not to repeat the Old Testament story of Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.  Tragically it has already happened in ROCOR formally and legally just as soon as Metropolitan Laurus signed the synodal document with ROCOR approval of the Act of Canonical Communion with the MP and thus, recognized the Primacy of the Patriarchs of Moscow over the Metropolitans of the Church Abroad.

In order to lose his canonical and spiritual "birthright" once and for all, Metropolitan Laurus openly and publicly (according to the protocol laid down in the ceremony of the signing of the Act of the Canonical Communion with the MP) – during the liturgical concelebration with the Patriarch in the Church of Christ the Savior in Moscow had to to take out in the Proskomedia, a particle "For the Great Lord and our Father, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II" and to commemorate his name out loud at the Great Entrance.  On May 17, 2007, Metropolitan Laurus did just that, and from that moment on he who acknowledged and proclaimed the Primacy of another above himself-metropolitan Laurus lost his own Primacy.

For all ROCOR members, who accepted the Act of Communion with the MP, metropolitan Laurus will remain as First Hierarch as senior in rank among the other bishops of ROCOR, but their Primate is another man – Patriarch of Moscow Alexy II.

The tragedy of this situation is as follows:  Voluntarily forfeiting his Primacy, Metropolitan Laurus took it away from ROCOR as well – instead of Genuine Primacy rising to the level of Patriarch Tikhon, he offers us an uncanonical illegitimate graceless Primacy of the MP – one born in schism and defiled by sergianism and ecumenism.

What is perhaps, the most tragic of all is that the whole Russian nation of Orthodox believers, by losing their legitimate Primate, who was only found in the Church Abroad – the Russian People have in effect been cheated out of having a legitimate Primate through which Divine Grace can be transmitted and the Russian nation can be reborn and be the beacon of the True Faith as many are hoping it one day will be again.

We must conclude that the commemoration of the non-canonical Patriarch of the MP can not provide grace in Sacraments performed by the clergy of the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus just as it can not convey grace with the further commemoration of the Metropolitan of ROCOR who voluntarily relinquished his Primacy.

Unfortunately, the canonical consciousness in ROCOR is at its lowest level.  Recognizing the spiritual malignancy of this Act of Canonical Communion with the MP many are fleeing in all directions!  There are among us, even those who "temporarily" seek refuge in sects like Tikhon Pasechnik's RTOC, or Vladimir Teleschev's ROCiE.

The validity (Grace) of the sacraments in the Church is provided by its canonicity and its Orthodox Faith.  By joining and submitting to the MP, which is a schism of the sergianists as well as a heresy of ecumenism anathematized by ROCOR in 1983, deprived of any legal Primate – the ROCOR of metropolitan Laurus represents a pseudo-church structure where the Grace of the Mysteries is logically impossible.

The non-commemoration of the Patriarch of the MP and the continued commemoration of the ROCOR Metropolitan is meaningless, because after May 17 neither of them is a canonical Primate in the Russian Church.  This fact is not taken into account by those who call themselves the "non-commemorators" and therein lies their spiritual error which is leading them to a profound canonical Schism – not only into a division of the Local Russian Church but into separation from The Church Universal, for the Church ceases to be Apostolic if it does not correspond to Article 9 of The Nicene Creed mentioned earlier, being presided by a Primate without Apostolic Succession.

Unfortunately, the canonical consciousness in ROCOR is at its lowest level.  Recognizing the spiritual malignancy of this Act of Canonical Communion with the MP many are fleeing in all directions!  There are among us, even those who "temporarily" seek refuge in sects like Tikhon Pasechnik's RTOC, or Vladimir Teleschev's ROCiE.

Some have gone so far as to even consider staying in the canonical field of The Act of Communion after May 17, 2007 under the Patriarch of Moscow and under the metropolitan of ROCOR [ROCOR-MP] but who petition to appoint for them, some ROCOR bishop for the liturgical commemoration-
When ignorance gets started it knows no bounds!

source (includes Russian original):

Statement of SIR regarding Unia ROCOR-MP) 

The Statement of the Holy Synod in Resistance regarding the Unia ROCOR (MP) and ROC (MP)
Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Greece
Holy Synod in Resistance
The Holy Synod in Resistance
and Her Attitude Towards the Union
of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate
I. Introduction
On the Feast of the Ascension of our Savior, Thursday 4/17 May 2007, upon completion of the process of rapprochement, union was realized, at a fully official level, between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, under His Eminence, Metropolitan Laurus, and the Moscow Patriarchate.

Thus, the venerable Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has fully united, through the Moscow Patriarchate, with all of the ecumenists, that is, with the so-called official local Churches, which have adopted or tolerate the New Calendar, participating in the ecumenical movement and its various institutional organs, on the basis of 1920 Encyclical of the Church of Constantinople.

 An immediate consequence of this union is the now total relinquishment by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the splendid anti-ecumenical Tradition that she articulated under her third Chief Hierarch, the very saintly Metropolitan Philaret (†1985), and which she expressed with singular theological clarity, depth, and consistency. 

An immediate consequence of this union is the now total relinquishment by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the splendid anti-ecumenical Tradition that she articulated under her [...?]

In 1994, the Holy Synod in Resistance established full Eucharistic communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, on the basis of the common anti-ecumenist self-understanding of the two Synods, which was evinced chiefly through their non-communion with all of the official ecumenist jurisdictions.

However, this communion was finally severed in 2005, as it became evident, on the one hand, that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was on a steadfast and irrevocable course towards union with the Moscow Patriarchate and, on the other hand, that she had jettisoned her anti-ecumenist outlook and her coöperation with the Holy Synod in Resistance; but the formal declaration and complete implementation of this rupture was postponed out of extreme oikonomia, so as to take effect without further ado, immediately, and automatically upon the opening of communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate.

The truly disappointing eclipse of an outstanding champion against the syncretistic heresy of ecumenism provokes the deepest sorrow among Old Calendarist Orthodox anti-ecumenists everywhere. This sorrow, however, is mitigated by the very gratifying news that a significant portion of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad disagrees with the union that has been accomplished and is now regrouping as an independent jurisdiction, in the awareness that it constitutes the authentic continuation of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

The Holy Synod in Resistance will, with especial joy, continue to have communion with this portion of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, as long as it truly desires such communion, and also as long as it possesses a clearly anti-ecumenist self-understandnot maintaining any kind of communion, directly or indirectly, with the Orthodox ecumenists.

To this end, we have deemed it expedient to publish on our website the more pertinent official documents of the Holy Synod in Resistance, which, on the one hand, clearly attest to the responsible way in which she handled relations with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad during the years 2000-2006, and, on the other hand, contain the unshakeable bases for communion with the “remnant chosen by Grace” (Romans 11:5), that is, that portion of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad which rejects the recent union with the Moscow Patriarchate.

Furthermore, our aim in publishing these official documents is to demonstrate how superficial and, in many ways, irresponsible is the wish and suggestion expressed by certain New Calendarists that the much-fragmented Old Calendarist Orthodox should emulate the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad by placing themselves under the official ecumenist jurisdictions, since the latter forget or overlook that, while the historical basis and occasion for the rift among the Russians (1917-) has been removed and no longer exists, it was quite different from the dispute which divided, and continues to divide—since it still exists and is, indeed, reinforced daily—, the Orthodox into ecumenists and resisters (1920, 1924-).
From the Chancery
of the Holy Synod in Resistance
Fili, Attika, 10 May 2007 (Old Style)
Holy Apostle Simon the Zealot



In the face of various misleading, self-serving, and mendacious accounts of the history of the Old Calendar movement that are at present in circulation, it seems to us appropriate to cite the circumstances and deliberations that led to the establishment of communion between the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) and the Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox clergy and Bishops headed by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili (the Synod in Resistance).

The union process, which has been misrepresented by various extremist circles, who are seeking to gain ground now that our Church has severed relations with the ROCA, after its recent unification with the Moscow Patriarchate, clearly addresses the canonicity of the Synod of Resistance; the illicit actions taken against it by certain Old Calendarist extremists; and the unity of confession and ecclesiastical self-consciousness between it and the ROCA [also known as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia] before the latter's change of course and polity and eventual union with Moscow.

The following conclusions and pronouncements by the Bishops of the ROCA followed a year-long investigation of the Greek Old Calendar movement by a committee established by the Holy Synod of that Church, prior to opening communion with the Synod in Resistance. Its deliberations and conclusions are described and enumerated below. They present a truthful presentation of facts, in contrast to the aforementioned fabrications and "histories," motivated as they are by opportunistic ambitions, wholly inappropriate to the Church, passing as attempts to unify the faithful.

* * *


3/16 August 1994
No. 3/50/148

        On 28 June/11 July, 1994, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia addressed the question of the possibility of entering into communion in prayer and the Eucharist with the group of Old Calendarist Greeks headed by Metropolitan Cyprian.
        Circumstances of the Case: A petition from the synod of Metropolitan Cyprian on this matter was received by the Synod of Bishops in 1993, but was not acted upon. Soon after, a new request was received, asking that the matter be reexamined. On 21 July/3 August, 1993, the Synod Bishops appointed a committee to study this question and present a report to the Synod of Bishops. In connection with this, the Council has heard the following:
        1) The report of the Committee, which consisted of Their Graces, Archbishop Laurus and Bishops Daniel and Mitrophanes, who studied the question of the existing divisions within the Greek Old Calendarist Church;
        2) A short history of the Greek Old Calendarist Church from its beginnings to the present day;
        3) During the deliberations, attention was also given to statements of those opposed to the union, in which questions were raised as to the canonicity of Metropolitan Cyprian's group and their allegedly un-Orthodox teaching on grace. The remarks of private individuals were also heard concerning this question;
        4) In addition, petitions from the Romanian Old Calendarists and the Bulgarian Bishop Photius, and from several private individuals, all urging the reception of the group of Metropolitan Cyprian into communion in prayer were heard;
        5) During the deliberation of all questions outlined above, it was established that:
                a) The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles as our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. This is set forth in detail in their pamphlet, "An Exposition of the Doctrine Concerning the Church, for Orthodox Opposed to the Heresy of Ecumenism";
                b) In 1986, the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom [Kiousis] II tried and deposed Metropolitan Cyprian in absentia for allegedly holding to heretical teaching and for refusing to unite himself to their synod. But as the history of the Old Calendarist divisions shows, Metropolitan Cyprian had never entered the synod of Archbishop Chrysostom II, which was only formed in late 1985, but was a member of the Synod of Metropolitan Callistos from 1979. Beginning in 1984, after the retirement of Metropolitan Callistos in 1983, Metropolitan Cyprian has headed the Synod of the former. Metropolitan Cyprian was never a part of the Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom and had never submitted to his authority; the latter, therefore, lacked the competence to discipline him.
                c) After deliberation and analysis of all aspects of these questions, the Council of Bishops holds that at the present time, when apostasy is spreading and many official representatives of Orthodoxy, such as the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other patriarchates, are succumbing to and embracing the position of the modernists and ecumenists, it is very important for the true Orthodox to unite, stand together and oppose the betrayers of the Orthodoxy of the holy fathers. In connection with this, the Council of Bishops has decided:
        1) To establish communion in prayer and the Eucharist with the Greek Old Calendarist synod of Metropolitan Cyprian, as well as with His Grace, Bishop Bishop Photius of Triaditza, who heads the Bulgarian Old Calendarist diocese.
        2) All parties refrain from interfering in each other's internal ecclesiastical affairs. If any questions arise which require deliberation, it is essential to take counsel together.
        RESOLVED: 1) To communicate the above-cited decision to Metropolitan Cyprian and Bishop Photius.
        2) To inform our clergy and flock of the Council's decision through publication in Church periodicals.

See, also, "Orthodox Life," Vol. XLIV, No. 4, pp. 49-50.

Statement Bishop Daniel

Заявление Преосвященнейшего Даниила, Епископа Ирийского за 12 дней до унии с МП

Statement by the Right Reverend Daniel, Bishop of Erie 12 days prior to the union with the MP


5 мая 2007 г.

Я , епископ Даниил Ирийский,
не буду подписывать акта о соединении
с Московской Патриархией. Я остаюсь
членом Русской Православной Церкви
Заграницей, а остальные могут
устраивать свое будущее. как нахо-
дят нужным.

Даниил, епископ Ирийский. 

I, Bishop Daniel of Erie,
I will not sign the act of connecting
with the Moscow Patriarchate. I'm staying
a member of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside, the rest can
arrange their future. as locat-
DYT fit.

Daniel, Bishop of Erie