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.

No comments: