On Church Divisions

St. Philaret of New York  †1985 

St. Basil the Great is a strict, demanding hierarch with a firm hand, an inspired defender and keeper of Church truth and Church canons.  However, when it came to those who had fallen into schism and afterwards returned, the strict Luminary would open the gates of the Church enclosure to them, attenuating in every way the requirements for those wishing to return. St. Basil would modify every strictness if only it would bring the lost sheep home.

But his tone decisively changes when those who had split off persisted and remained in that state.  Then St. Basil states: "A schism which persists stubbornly and at length should be viewed as approaching real heresy; therefore such schismatics must be viewed as heretics, i.e., there should be no interaction with them."  Here is the judgment of St. John Chrysostom: "Nothing offends God greater than division of the church, for even if you perform a thousand good deeds, you will be subject to no lesser judgment than those who scourged the body of Christ.  If we sever the wholeness of the Church, such a sin cannot be expiated even by martyric blood.  What I have spoken is directed at those who indiscriminately join those who separate themselves from the Church."  How difficult and sorrowful it is to hear: "I attend any church I please.  It does not matter that the hierarchs and priests don't get along; it makes no difference to me since there is One God and One Church."  But look what Chrysostom says: "What I have spoken is directed at those who indiscriminately join those people who have separated themselves from the Church.  If those who have become separate adhere to dogmas contrary to ours, i.e., they have distorted the faith itself, then it is clear that we must no longer have any interaction with them."  In some cases they say that these churches teach as we do, that we have everything in common and all of it is correct.  "But if they think the same as do we, then we must avoid them all the more!" said Chrysostom.  Why is this so?  Because this is the infirmity of vainglory.

This was the case, for instance, in both of out schisms: Metropolitan Platon and Metropolitan Evlogy did not wish to submit to the Synod of Bishops.  They say they have the same faith and according to that faith they are as Orthodox as we.  If this is so, then why are they not with us?  The Lord is One, there is one faith, one baptism, one truth — not two graces, not two truths: if they are in the right, then we are in the wrong; but if we are in the right, then they are in the wrong.  There are not two graces, Christ did not divide the Church.  If they have left us and become separate because they consider us to be incorrect, then there must be one of two outcomes: either they have lost grace by separating from us and therefore have none, or they have taken it with them and away from us in which case we are without grace.  How can people not understand this?  The service appears to be the same, it all looks the same, and they say: "God is One, so to us there is no difference: the service is the same as over there."  Once in Harbin, someone said to a priest: "Batiushka, why shouldn't I go there?  They serve the same as we do.  I can pray there as well, they have absolutely the same prayers and order, and everything in general."  Then the priest took two 50 cent coins from his pocket and says: "Look, they are exactly the same, but one is real and the other is counterfeit.  According to you if a peasant becomes literate, he can make his own church, sew his own vestments, and begin serving the same way we do, then does that mean that those will be genuine prayers and genuine mysteries?"  To this Chrysostom says: "If we are in the right, that means they are in the wrong, but if they are in the right, then we are in the wrong."

You have probably read Metropolitan Iriney's response to our address in the newspapers.  This is the response of the American Metropolia to the Sobor's letter.  Previously, the American Metropolia had still called itself Russian, but now they even refuse to do this, stating, "We are NOT part of the Russian Church."  Metropolitan Iriney writes that we are on different paths that we have too many differences, and therefore we should just pray together, that the spirit of Christian love calls us to concelebrate and pray together.  When I read all these flowery phrases it was very depressing and unpleasant — for we know the true state of affairs, while all along they have been attempting to clamber up onto a position of benefit for themselves.  We are speaking about the real state of affairs, for there are still too many essential differences of opinion preventing an instant union without first resolving the differences!  Yet, they say, set the differences aside and let's just concelebrate and pray together since we are of one faith!  Undoubtedly many are comfortable with this, not among the faithful children of the Church Abroad since they fully understand the issue at hand, but among the silent majority.

Having received our response in which we essentially are insisting on our previous proposal to meet and deliberate the differences fundamentally, Metropolitan Iriney wrote me the following:

"Your letter of January 31st absolutely clearly indicates that our proposal to first of all restore joint prayer, thereby paving the road to overcoming church division, is rejected by you.  Meanwhile, as you reject it, you place the responsibility for this on us.  You call my letter to you "polemically charged" and that in and of itself it is indicative of the lack of common grounds for unity.  All the while, the focus of my letter was an appeal and proposal for rapprochement: to begin not with polemicizing, but with prayer, acquiring God's grace-filled aid.  I permit myself to remind you of my words: 'Our division, caused by the tragic upheaval of our era, does not justify the separation in prayer and sacrament, therefore it is precisely through sacramental unity, joining us with Christ and in Him with each other, that we see the only path toward mutual understanding and reconciliation.'  There is one solution: a return to this basic unity, unity in Christ in Whom we believe, the liberating and vivifying strength and joy of common prayer have not been violated by all these divergences of opinion.  Any other path, any other inception will indeed be a continuation of the old path and will lead only to a greater exacerbation of our differences."

Yet, in the holy canons, which he circumvents with pious meekness, it states that if you pray with those of incorrect dogma, you will be excommunicated from the Church.  But this is not mentioned.  He then continues:

"Your Eminence (addressing me), are you indeed interpreting these words conscientiously as being 'polemically charged'?  If so, then what could be the content of our discussions in an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust?  How will we judge others for "living a lie" unless we first re-establish simple truth within ourselves and renounce out own crooked ways?  And finally, how will we arrive at this is not trough prayer, if not through meeting each other in Christ?  In your initial address to us,  we hears a decisiveness to make a truly new step: a seeking of new paths.  And we responded with complete genuiness and readiness in two proposals to begin the healing of the most terrible and temptation-ridden wound for everyone — the division of brothers in the faith, in spirit, in blood at the Altar of God.  This holy cause needs no preliminary clarification; on the contrary, this meeting, we need only this meeting in Christ, and through that very unity the Universal Church will take the next steps!  Steps along a new path, instead of a torturous stomping in the same spot in an inescapable impasse."

As I was reading, I recall that finally I figured it out: the constant use of flowery phrases about how good it is to be together and close saying that's where we should being, yet stubbornly not wishing to recognize that he want to begin at the end.  This is what was written in the newspapers.  I respond to him:

"Your Eminence, our correspondence through the press has reached an impasse and there is no point in continuing it, but I feel it is necesary to respond to your last letter.  Appealing to my conscience you cite an excerpt from your previous letter and ask which part of the excerpt do I view as 'polemically charges'?  But I don't see that in this excerpt.  You did not cite your entire lertter which contains completely different expressions.  You persistently avoid the main issue which separates us.  Which one?  You know yourself which one.  You insistently call for joint prayer.  It goes without saying that it would be great joy to restore such interaction!  But that could begin only when the differences are on a personal level; in such cases it is clear "let's make peace and not be angry!"  But when it comes to differences of a principled nature, according to the words of the Church: "Let us love one another so that with one mind we may confess," it is imperative to first achieve this onenes of mind and only after it is achieved, the joy of the accomplishment is crowned by joint prayer.  remember the historical hierarchial council meeting:  Metropolitan Evlogy, Metropolitan Feofil, Metropolitan Anastasy, Bishop Dimitri met to discuss differences on church matters.  They did not start, but ended their meeting by concelebrating.  In general, throughout the history of the Church there has never been a concelebration without oneness of mind.  This is a purely ecumenical, contemporary invention.  In the ecumenical way of thinking, love opens its broad embrace to all.  But according to the astute and profound observation of the editor of "Pravoslavnaya Rus,'" this love intends to smother true Orthodoxy to death in its embrace.  It is not in vain that the very apostle of love says that a man who speaks falsely about the truth should nto be greeted or received in the home, for the one who greets him participates in his evil doings.

When I spoke on this subject with His Eminence, the wise and peace-loving Archbishop Andrew of Rockland, he spoke so vividly and persuasively on this matter that I would like to quote his words in their entirely.  Vladyka Andrey says: 

"I recall an episode in the life of Blessed Ksenia of Petersburg.  She was particularly popular among the merchant class.  The merchants noticed that every visit from the bleaased one brought them success in trade.  It was the same way with St. John of Kronstadt — when he would come to a merchant for something, God would send the latter success.  Once at a certain trade center, some merchants managed to acquire several fragrant varieties of the best honey from a wealthy estate.  They had white honey, buckwheat honey and honey from other flowers.  Each had its own distinctive taste and fragrance.  When the merchants mixed all these varieties together in one barrel, the fragrance and taste which resulted were beyond imagination.  Thje buyers grabbed up the honey, without care about the price.  Then suddenly Blessed Ksenia appreader: "Don't take it.  Don't take it," she cried.  "This honey is inedible, it smells putrid!"  And she started to chase the buyers off.  "Matushka, have you gone crazy?  Don't get in our way, just look at our profit.  How can you prove that this honey is inedible?"  "I'll prove it!" said the blessed one, draping herself over the barrel and tipping it over.  As the honey flowed out onto the roadway, it emitted a sweet fragrance.  And when all the honey had flowed out, everyone screamed in horror and jumped away: on the bottom of the barrel lay an enormous dead rat.  Even those who had paid a high price for the honey and were still carrying it in jars, threw it down and scattered off.  Why, continued Vladika, did I recall this case?  I will readily answer why I am quoting it now: a few days ago an American interested in Orthodoxy who had visited all the Orthodox churches both in the Soviet Union and in America asked me why I, along with an entire group of Russian Orthodox people, am not participating in the reception for the Patriarchal delegation, and in general seem to be avoiding anything to do with church life in the Soviet Union, and even here in America, we avoid those Orthodox groups which have any connection with the Patriarchate?  What is the matter?  Are the dogmas different or the mysteries or services different?  I gave it some thought and responded, says Vladika: No, that is not the issue, the faith and the services are the same.  The Orthodox faith emits a fragrance of its own, like a fragrant honey, no matter where it is proclaimed.  But if this fragrant honey were to be poured into a barrel in whci a dead rat is found on the bottom, would you want to taste that honey?  He looked at me, horrified and said, of course not!  I answered him that likewise, we avoid everything that is connected with communism.  For us communism is the same as that dead rat at the bottom of the barrel.  And even if this barrel were filled to the brim with the best aromatic honey — there is no way that we would wan t that honey!  Honey is wonderful in and of itself, but in this case it has been infected with the poison and stench of a corpse.  My interlocutor nodded his head silently — he had understood."

My rhetoric follows:

 

The main issue which divides us is the issue of the Soviet hierarchy, about which you are perssitenly silent.  the Church Abroad will only recognize it as the lawful head of the suffering Russian Church when it will reject the shameful, terrible declaratin of Metropolitan Sergius with complete resoluteness, when it departs from its perditious path and embarks on the path of Church truth, protecting it fearlessly and openly.  The shameful blemish must be washed away.  Until this happens it remains under the onophorion of theomachistic regime, not daring to make a step without the regime's "blessing," particularly in its activities abroad — even a child can see this.

In concluding this letter, to follow your example, I will ask you: can your hierarchial conscience even consider the KGB servants dressed in riassas and klobuks to indeed be the true spiritual leaders and heads of the Russian Church?  Can it be that you don't see that in this Soviet organization to which you have tied yourselves, a dead rat lies at the bottom?  And if you don't see this, or don't wish to see it, if you prefer, as the Gospel says, "to shut your eyes and cover your ears," to somehow barricade yourselves off from this sad reality, then of course further talks would be completely pointless: there can be no discussion of unification and especially concelebration.

Translated by Eugenia Chisholm from The Sermons of Teachings of his Eminence Metropolitan Philaret First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad  Volume II. 265ff.

Published by the Committee for Russian Orthdoox Youth, Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, 1989

  for Living Orthodoxy magazine #156 Vol. XXXVI #3, Nov-Dec 2006.  Archpriest Gregory Williams of ROCA (Agafangel), SJKP in Liberty Tennessee

  pdf copy of magazine found in the LO folder in Joanna's Shared Library

note from Joanna:

it helps to understand that the American Metropolia is known today as the OCA.  A full, unbiased, and carefully researched history is found in Joanna's Shared Library titled "ROCOR History HTM."  In brief, the OCA originally was part of the ROCOR.  In the 70s they decided they were ready for autocephaly.  The Synod denied their request because they were too young.  Proof of that came soon enough; after Metropolia got their autocephaly they promptly fell into renovationism and modernism.  It will forever be in disobedience to the ROCOR Synod that they sought autocephaly from ROCOR's adversary: Moscow — which, with typical cold-heartedness and shrewdness, used the opportunity for its own advantage.  Today the OCA remains beholden to Moscow, and Moscow remains under the leadership of KGB hierarchs.

As far as I know ROCOR (Agafangel) no longer mourns the fall of Metropolia.  This generation is not even aware of what really happened,  Read the history.