Редакция Православного альманаха

«Романитас»

 

 

 

Рубрика «Документы»

 

 

Протокол за н.49 от 11/24 июля  2004 г. «Второго Заседания Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ» по делу Преосвященного Григория (Абу-Асаля)

 

 Энциклика по делу «Митр.Валентина» «Преосвященного Григория».

 

 

 

В сегодняшней рассылке мы публикуем второй протокол Заседания Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ по делу Архиепископа Григория, Денверского и Колорадского. Первый протокол за номером 48 от 2/15 июля, из которого видно, что РПАЦ полагает себя Поместной Российской Церковью, опубликован солдатовским Интернет-журналом «Вертоград-информ», продолжающим, несмотря на имевшее место официальное волеизъявление Учредителя,  именовать себя «Вертоградом». Напомним, что согласно собственной официальной позиции,  РПАЦ считает основой своего канонического бытия Ук. Н.362 Св.Патр.Тихона. Однако и в нынешнем «Протоколе» логика «РПАЦ – Поместная Церковь»,  причем до Всероссийского Собора и выбора на нем Патриарха (что и предполагает Ук.362 для малых автономно самоуправляющихся епархий, существующих на его основе)   находит свое развитие.

 

 Предупреждаем нашего читателя о том, что версий «Протоколов Заседаний Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ» после каждой синодальной сессии бывает как минимум три-четыре, причем часто они весьма существенно противоречат друг другу и рассчитаны на разные группы лиц, а некоторые из тех, кто фигурирует в качестве их подписавших (например, катакомбные архиереи) случается, заявляют о том, что и вовсе их не подписывали.

 

В качестве приложения к любопытному документу, орфография которого оставлена нами без изменений, публикуем денверский ответ на «Протоколы» Первого Заседания - Энциклику Архиеп.Григория (Абу-Асаля) и письмо в его поддержку со стороны болгарского духовенства РПАЦ.

 

 

15/28 июля 2004 г «Романитас»

 

 

 

 

 

ПРОТЛКОЛ ЗА № 49  от11\24 июля 2004г.

 

 

Второе заседание Архиерейского Синода

Российской Православной Автономной Церкви

началось в актовом зале Ризоположенского монастыря после Божественной литургии в 11 часов с пением: «Царю Небесный»

 

Присутствовали:

 

1. Митрополит Валентин, Председатель Арх.Синода

2. Архиепископ Феодор

3. Ахиепископ Серафим

4. Епископ Антоний

5. Епископ Тимофей

6. Епископ Амвросий

7. Епископ Иларион

 8. Епископ Геронтий

9. Епископ Севастиан

 

Повестка дня:

 

1.    Отчёт Митрополита Валентина о поездке в США.

2.    О наградах духовенства РПАЦ в США

3.    Разбор жалобы Архиепископа Денверского и Колорадского Григория.

4.    Доклад Архиепископа Феодора о состоянии Суздальской Епархии в отсутствие Митрополита.

5.    Доклад Архиепископа Серафима о своей деятельности среди верующих катакомбников.

6.    Доклад епископа Антония о своей деятельности в среде верующих катакомбников.

7.    Доклад о жизни и деятельности в Тульско-Брянской епархии.

8.    Чествование юбиляра Епископа Антония, которому исполняется 80 лет.

9.    Р А З Н О Е.

 

 Слушали:

 

1. Митрополита Валентина, который рассказал, что он выехал в США, чтобы встретиться с духовенством, находящимся в  юрисдикции Российской Православной Автономной Церкви с целью ознакомления с жизнью и деятельностью пастырей и верующих и встретиться с теми, кто вновь подал прошение с просьбой принять их под омофор РПАЦ.

В силу некоторых обстоятельств Митрополиту Валентину пришлось вылететь в Колорадо к Преосвященному Епископу Григорию, где он совершил Божественную литургию, а затем провел  встречу и беседу с духовенством и верующими, а также ответил на  интересующие вопросы.

Беседа продолжалась до глубокой ночи и в это время, видимо, от переутомления, ему стало плохо. Вызвали скорую помощь и на следующий день сделали операцию на сердце.

После долгого лечения (около трёх месяцев) он смог в день Святой Троицы отслужить Божественную литургию и причаститься Святых Христовых Таинств.

После Божественной литургии верующие и духовенство попросили его повторно остаться в монастырской трапезной и провести с ними беседу, а также ответить на некоторые интересующие вопросы. Просьба духовенства и верующих была удовлетворена.

Далее Митрополит Валентин продолжил свой доклад о состоянии Денверской и Колорадской епархии. В частности Председатель Синода сказал, что он ознакомился с делами Управления епархией Преосвященного Григория и пришёл к неутешительным выводам.

 2. Преосвященный Григорий, неожиданно для Митрополита внёс предложение, чтобы он написал прошение на имя Архиепископа Калинника, Председателя Греческого Синода с просьбой войти в молитвенное и евхаристическое общение, утверждая, что Калиникитский Синод – это Синод исповедующий  Православное вероучение  и у них много Епископов.

В ответ на предложение Преосвященного Григория Митрополитом Валентином был задан вопрос, что, если они (Калиникитский Синод) исповедуют Православное вероучение, почему же Преосвященный Григорий ушёл из этого Синода и перешёл в РПАЦ?

Преосвященный Григорий не смог ответить, но стал обещать Митрополиту Валентину помочь финансами РПАЦ, т.е. делать взносы - так называемую «десятину», как указано в уставе РПАЦ, явно намекая, что Преосвященный Григорий намерен выдать Митрополиту Валентину солидную сумму (тридцать тысяч) американских долларов. 

3. К митрополиту Валентину пришёл друг и соплеменник Преосвященного Григория по имени Джерджиз из Пенсильвании, который сказал, что он привез «десятину» в сумме тридцать тысяч американских долларов и передал Преосвященному Григорию для РПАЦ, а затем при восьми свидетелях настойчиво стал рекомендовать соединиться с Греческим, Калиникитским Синодом, на что Митрополит Валентин ответил, что если бы он привёз триста тысяч долларов, то это все равно не помогло бы, ибо «Православие не покупается и не продаётся!».

4. С этого момента со стороны Преосвященного, его соплеменника Джерджиса и его приближённых началась Интернетная травля против Митрополита Валентина  и того духовенства, которое было  свидетелем всех разговоров. А между тем Апостольское Правило гласит: «Аще кто из клира досадит епископу, да будет извержен»( Апост. Пр. 55).

 5. Далее Митрополит рассказал, что Преосвященный Григорий настоятельно требовал указ от него на право управлять всеми церквями в США, так как он единственный православный Архиерей, обещая помощь РПАЦ в сумме сорока тысяч американских долларов. «Это уже симония», - последовал ответ со стороны Митрополита Валентина.

 Не получив положительного ответа, Преосвященный Григорий внёс предложение: поделить Америку на две части: он и будущий кандидат в Епископы о. Андрей (Маклаков) будут управлять всеми церквями в США. А вообще то он должен управлять духовенством не только в США, но и в Болгарии, Корее и даже в Китае, позабыв, что «Епископ не должен разделять область …, чтобы  получить  имя  Митрополита» ( Четв. 12).

 6. Необходимо обратить наше внимание на то, что Американский континент никогда не был и в настоящее время не является канонической территорией какой-либо из поместных православных Церквей, поэтому все создаваемые там православные приходы и епархии являются приходами и епархиями миссионерскими, к какой бы из истинно-православных Церквей они ни принадлежали. Епархии и приходы РПАЦ в Америке не являются исключением.

Соответствующие особенности управления миссионерскими епархиями оговариваются в правиле 2 Второго Вселенского собора.

Это правило, в основной своей части, устанавливает принцип строгого ограничения власти любого епископа пределами вверенной ему епархии. Однако, в конце там сделана следующая оговорка:

       «Церкви же Божии, у иноплеменных народов (ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἔθνεσι, что буквально переводится «у варварских народов», т.е. у нехристиан; латинский эквивалент — in partibus infidelibus), долженствуют быти правимы, по соблюдавшемуся до ныне обыкновению Отцев».

Таким образом, в самом тексте канона сказано, что проведенный в этом каноне принцип ограничения власти епископа только его епархией не должен соблюдаться применительно к епархиям в нехристианских землях, а следует держаться тех способов управления, которые там сложились исторически, хотя бы это и противоречило принципу невмешательства архиерея в дела чужой епархии. Именно так понимали это правило и в Византии, о чем единогласно свидетельствуют византийские толкователи (Аристин, Зонара, Вальсамон, в толковании на данное правило).

В качестве примера «епископств у иноплеменников (варваров)» Вальсамон (XII век) приводит «Аланию [Северный Кавказ], Россию и другие; ибо Аланы  принадлежат к Понтийскому округу, а Россы к Фракийскому» (в толковании на 28 правило Четвертого Вселенского собора). В настоящее время Америка является по отношению к России такой же миссионерской территорией, какой в XII веке была сама Россия по отношению к Византии, причем, такое положение сохранялось едва ли не до XV века.

Применительно к американским приходам и епархиям РПАЦ «соблюдавшимся доныне обыкновением» является их управление Архиерейским Синодом РПАЦ. Поэтому существовавшие там до недавнего времени епархия Денверская и Колорадская, а также управление Администратора РПАЦ в США находились в подчинении Архиерейскому Синоду РПАЦ, решением которого оперативное управление приходами в штате Колорадо было возложено на Преосвященного Григория Денверского и Колорадского, а на Администратора РПАЦ в остальных штатах Америки.

Поэтому все вопросы, связанные с клириками епархии Денверской и Колорадской, находятся в окончательном ведении Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ, а решения по этим вопросам, вынесенные правящим архиереем епархии, имеют силу лишь постольку, поскольку они изначально не противоречили постановлениям Синода и впоследствии не были отменены Синодом. Это относится и к любой другой епархии РПАЦ, которая может быть сформирована на Американском континенте или других миссионерских территориях.

7. Преосвященный Григорий в одной из бесед потребовал запретить в священнослужении и уволить в заштат клириков, которые находятся не в ведении Денверской Епархии, а в введении Архиерейского Синода: почтенного протопресвитера о. Владимира Шишкова, протопресвитера о. Виктора Мелихова, протоиерея о. Спиридона Шнайдера, архимандрита о. Михаила из Гаити и иеромонаха о. Илью, позабыв или не знав, что «Всякая епархия должна сохранять без стеснения принадлежащия ей права и никто из Епископов не должен простирать власть на иную епархию» (Трет.8 Антиох 9. Карф.64, 57).

8. Несколько днями позже  Преосвященный Григорий стал предпринимать репрессивные действия: без всякой причины запретил в священнослужении игумена Андрея (Маклакова), прот. Дионисия Мак Гоуэна.

9. Архиепископ Феодор зачитывает письмо о. Андрея Маклакова, где говорится, что Преосвященный Григорий не признаёт моего распоряжения о переводе его на другой приход и тем самым нарушил правило «Епископы  каждой области должны почитать его (Митрополита) яко главу, ничего превышающего власть их не делать  без его рассуждения, и возносить имя его в молитвах»  (Апост. 34 Антиох. 9).

 

10. Архиепископ Феодор: зачитывает рапорт игумена Андрея Маклакова, в котором говорится, что Преосвященный Григорий не признаёт указа Митрополита о переводе игумена о. Андрея (Маклакова) в Нью-Йорк вторым священником при Свято-Никольском храме и запрещает его в священнослужении (рапорт прилагается) и тем самым нарушает правила Карф. Собора 66, где говорится, что  «Митрополит может взять клирика у подвластного себе Епископа, и посвятить его во диакона, пресвитера и Епископа требующей церкви» ( Карф. 66) Изд. Канада, стр. 91-92).

11. Архиепископ Феодор зачитывает прошение прот. о. Дионисия Мак Гоуэна, где в частности говорится: «Будучи свидетелем несправедливого обращения со стороны  Архиепископа Григория к Митрополиту Валентину и его действий, которые по-моему ведут к расколу, и предвидя возможные последствия, я обращаюсь к Архиерейскому Синоду принять меня и мой приход непосредственно в своё ведение»… «…Архиепископ Григорий сказал мне, что мне не разрешается служить Божественную литургию у себя на приходе. Мне не далось никакой причины или объяснения…» (Рапорт прилагается).

12. Преосвященный Архиепископ Феодор продолжает зачитывать письмо диакона о. Фотия (ныне иерея), который в частности пишет: «Покорнейше прошу Вас разрешить мне быть непосредственно под Архиерейским Синодом…Это прошение делаю из-за канонических нарушений со стороны Архиепископа Григория, который произошёл в скором времени и поэтому, чтобы поступать в гармонии со своею совестью, я слежу за этим делом в надежде, что смогу защищать свою душу и душ тех, которые со мною» (прим. Сохраняется орфография оригинала) (Рапорт, прошение и письмо прилагаются), а между тем правило гласит: «Епископ не должен запрещать по пристрастию» ( Сед. 4).

В результате духовенство и верующие, возмутившись поведением Преосвященного Григория, ушли из под юрисдикции Преосвященного и попросились перейти под омофор Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ (копии прошений прилагаются).

13. Учитывая, что многократные беседы с Преосвященным Григорием, советы, рекомендации, остались лишь одними словами, а как известно слово к делу пришить невозможно, Митрополитом Валентином было принято решение письменно изложить его заблуждения и посоветовать ему временно уйти на покой до решения Архиерейского синода без права совершения Таинств, так как предвидел, что Преосвященный на этом не успокоится и будет бунтовать среди своей паствы и монастырской братии, налагая всевозможные прещения (копия письма - рекомендации прилагается).

 Постановили:

 

         Одобрить позицию Митрополита Валентина и считать полезным для Церкви Божией его советы и рекомендации, изложенные в обращении к Преосвященному Григорию от 3\16 июня 2004г. за № 130 .

 Слушали:

 

14. Председателя Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ, который продолжил свое свидетельство, что несмотря на то, что Преосвященному Григорию не рекомендовался выезд в Болгарию, однако, Преосвященный Григорий тайно вылетел в Болгарию в сопровождении архимандрита Георгия и там совершали Божественную литургию за которой рукоположил  ставленника во диакона, а затем вместе с духовенством вылетели в Грецию, тогда как Болгария находится в ведении Архиерейского Синода и таким образом нарушил Апостольские правила:

а) «Епископ не должен переходить самовольно из своей епархии в другую, и там рукополагать и устроять церковныя дела, до него не принадлежащий, разве будет на то определение Собора. (Апост. 14) или согласия местного Епископа» (Анкир.13).

б) «Не должен в не принадлежащем ему городе учить всенародно, (Шест. 20), особенно к унижению  местного Епископа» (Сард.11).

в) «Епископ не должен восхищать клирика, принадлежащего области другого, и рукополагать без согласия его Епископа, иначе его поставление не действительно» (Перв. 16, Четв. 20, Карф.65,91,101, Сард. 15).

г) «Перешедший самовольно должен быть возвращён к своей церкви, а распоряжения его должны остаться не действительны» (Апост.14,35, Перв.15, Втор.2, Чет. 5 Ант. 13, 21,22. Сард. 1,2,3, Карф. 59).

 15. Многочисленные жалобы на архиепископа Григория связаны с тем, что он настаивает на обязательном крещении тех, кто присоединяется к РПАЦ, хотя бы эти люди ранее были членами других истинно-православных церквей. Вследствие этого, многие православные христиане либо не смогли присоединиться к Российской церкви, либо смогли сделать это лишь после чрезвычайных усилий, потраченных на то, чтобы обойти препятствие в лице архиепископа Григория. Особенно это относится к тем из православных христиан, которые присоединились к истинной Церкви в лице РПЦЗ еще до ее апостасии, а в настоящее время остались без церковного крова.

Не говоря о многочисленных случаях с мирянами (несколько десятков семей), следует указать, как на особенно вопиющий, на случай с архимандритом Михаилом и возглавляемой им православной миссией на острове Гаити, когда-то входившей в состав РПЦЗ. Желая присоединиться к Российской церкви, архимандрит Михаил вступил в переговоры с архиепископом Григорием, но услышал в ответ, что тот может его принять лишь через крещение, после чего должны быть повторно крещены все те, кто сам был крещен архимандритом Михаилом, то есть все несколько сотен человек его прихожан на Гаити (хотя все эти прихожане были крещены в строгом соответствии с православным чинопоследованием, в три погружения). В результате, дело о принятии в РПАЦ православной миссии на Гаити было отложено, и его удалось решить положительно только тогда, когда митрополит Валентин смог лично посетить США.

С самого начала пребывания архимандрита Григория в РПАЦ ему неоднократно указывалось, что принятие в Российскую церковь истинно-православных христиан из других церквей не может сопровождаться никаким видом чиноприема и, тем более, крещением, поскольку все виды чиноприема (крещение, миропомазание, покаяние) установлены лишь для приема в Церковь тех, кто раньше к ней не принадлежал. Однако, как показало время, архиепископ Григорий так и не внял этим увещаниям.

Причину этого неоднократно излагал сам архиепископ Григорий, в частности, в своих выступлениях во всемирной сети Интернет. Так, в 2001 году, выступая на различных Интернет-форумах, архиепископ Григорий заявлял, что лицо, принятое в Православную Церковь вторым или третьим чином (то есть через миропомазание или покаяние, но без крещения), никогда не сможет стать святым, даже в случае мученичества. Когда ему указывали, в качестве обратного примера на св. преподобномученицу Елизавету, он просто отказывался верить общеизвестным фактам ее биографии (состоявшим в том, что она была принята в православие из лютеранства через миропомазание).

В действительности, за такой позицией Преосвященного Григория стоит радикальное отрицание традиционной практики Российской Церкви и, следовательно, отрицание того, что многие тысячи христиан, принятые таким образом в православие Российской Церковью, стали полноценными христианами.

Российская церковь всегда отдавала себе отчет, что по отношению к еретикам и раскольникам, желающим принять православие, в различных поместных церквах существовала и существует различная практика применения акривии и икономии, да и в жизни одной и той же поместной церкви эта практика менялась на протяжении истории. Такое разнообразие практик иногда неизбежно вызывает недоразумения, однако, в целом, оно оправдано и никогда в истории Вселенской Церкви не бывало эпохи, когда подобного разнообразия в применении икономии по отношению к отделившимся от Церкви сообществам не существовало. Так, о разнообразии практик в отношении чиноприема одних и тех же еретиков и раскольников упоминают правила 1 Василия Великого и 95 Шестого Вселенского собора.

Сознавая всё это, дореволюционная Российская церковь, как и в настоящее время РПАЦ, никогда не утверждала о своей собственной практике как о единственно возможной, но, в то же время, никогда не считала единственно возможной практику других поместных церквей, оставляя за собой право на самостоятельное решение подобных вопросов.

Не дерзая выносить суждения о справедливости меры икономии или акривии, применяемой в других истинно-православных церквах, Российская Православная церковь просто принимает без испытания в качестве истинно-православных христиан всех тех, кто считался таковыми в другой истинно-православной церкви. В этом случае РПАЦ считает необходимым доверять суждению собратий-архипастырей, установивших в той или иной истинно-православной церкви соответствующую дисциплинарную норму. Однако, признавая каноническую дисциплину внутри других истинно-православных церквей, РПАЦ не может допустить случаев нарушения ее собственного дисциплинарного строя, в чем оказывается повинен архиепископ Григорий.

К великому прискорбию, Преосвященный Григорий погрешил не только против сложившейся практики Российской церкви и ее внутренней дисциплины, но и против самых фундаментальных канонов относительно святого крещения, а именно, против Апостольского правила 47 (повторенного и в правиле 59 Карфагенского собора), которое повелевает «епископа или пресвитера, аще по истине имеющаго крещение вновь окрестит», извергать из сана, «яко посмевающегося Кресту и смерти Господней». Архиепископ Григорий, настаивая на необходимости крещения даже для тех, кто получил правильное крещение в три погружения в одной из истинно-православных церквей, выступил явным противником святых апостолов.

В обоснование этой своей позиции он приводил, якобы от имени всей Российской церкви, мнение, будто только РПАЦ и Каллиникитский синод имеют благодать таинств, тогда как все остальные церкви мира являются отпавшими.

 Этот совершенно неоправданный фанатизм Преосвященного Григория ни в коей мере не является позицией Российской церкви, а для самого Преосвященного Григория он послужил причиной тяжких канонических прегрешений, которых одних достаточно для предания его церковному суду.

         16. Имеется достаточно свидетельств тому, что Преосвященный Григорий нарушил многочисленные, вышеизложенные правила Святых Апостол, Вселенских и поместных Соборов, а также правила святых Отцов.        Хотя формальное судопроизводство Архиерейским Синодом РПАЦ не совершалось и приговор не произнесён, это не даёт права кому бы то ни было считать позволительным толковать или тем более нарушать Святые Каноны, являющиеся незыблемым основанием Святой Церкви.

17. Преосвященный Григорий нарушил каноны Святой Православной Апостольской Церкви, а также нарушил Архиерейскую присягу, данную при хиротонии:

         «… Обещаюся и церковный мир соблюдати и твердо деоржати  и ни единыим убо нравом в чесом противная Православной Кафоличестей Восточней Христианской вере мудрствовати во вся дни живота моего, и последовати ми во всём и повиноватися всегда Высокопреосвященнейшему Митрополиту Валентину, Преосвященным Архиереям, братии моей во всём согласну быти и купночинну, по божественным законом и священным правилом Святых Апостол и Святых Отец, и любовь духовную вседушно к ним имети, и яко братию почитати.

 

…К сим обещаюсь…аще и смертью ми воспретят, велящее что сотворити ми вопреки божественным и священным правилом: ниже в чужой епархии литургисати, или ино что  священных деяти без воли епархии оные Архиерея, такожде не рукополагати  ми ниже иерея, ниже диакона, ниже инаго каковаго клирика чуждыя епархии, ниже приимати я в свою епархию без отпускных грамот своих им Архиереем».

Преосвященный Григорий допустил нарушение Святых канонов и Архиерейской присяги. Принимая во внимание вышеизложенное Архиерейский Синод Российской Православной Церкви

Постановил:

 

Преосвященный Григорий Денверский и Колорадский, да не будет в общении… да будет судим, как произнесший приговор сам против себя.

18. Принимая во внимание последние события и заявления по Интернету Преосвященного Григория, Архиерейский Синод Российской Православной Церкви не считает более Преосвященного Григория (АббуАссали) Архиереем Российской Православной Автономной Церкви.

 

Председатель

 Архиерейского Синода

 

В А Л Е Н Т И Н,

_________________________________ ,

Митрополит Суздальский и Владимирский.

 

Управляющий  делами

Архиерейского Синода

 

_______________________________ ,

Архиепископ Борисовский и Отрадненский.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Слушали:

19. Митрополита Валентина, который продолжил свой отчёт и сообщил, что не взирая на свое недомогание, он посетил ряд храмов, где совершал всенощное бдение и Божественную литургию. Одного  клирика принял под омофор РПАЦ и постриг его в монашество с последующим возведением в Архимандриты. Архимандрит Михаил более тридцати лет трудится на ниве Христовой и служит в стране Гаити. Имеет 750 студентов, около ста учеников и 185 прихожан, которых о. Михаил крестил троекратным погружением.

         20. Приняты были под омофор РПАЦ видные священнослужители, как например, протопресвитер о. Виктор Мелихов, бывший секретарь Архиерейского Синода РПЗЦ (В), протоиерей о. Спиридон Шнайдер, игумен о. Андрей (Маклаков) и другие. Всего было принято 12 церковнослужителей. Один из них православный капеллан, имеющий при Университете 800 студентов. Одного хиротонисал во иереи и одного в диаконы. Продолжая свой отчёт, Митрополит Валентин сказал, что он, согласно Постановлению Архиерейского Синода РПАЦ наградил некоторых клириков, служащих в США.

 

Постановили:

 

Доклад принять к сведению.

 

 Слушали:

 

         21. Архиепископа Феодора, который рассказал о жизни и деятельности духовенства во время отсутствия Митрополита Валентина, что богослужения и послушания проходили  своим чередом без особых изменений, за исключением того, что некоторые из прихожан и насельниц монастырей боятся получать новые паспорта.

         В связи с празднованием 600-летия со времени преставления Преподобного Евфимия Суздальского были проведены торжественные Богослужения и Евфимиевские чтения. От дня его преставления до дня обретения его святых мощей совершались ежедневные акафисты Преподобному.

 

Постановили:

 

Доклад принять к сведению.

 

 Слушали:

 

         22. Архиепископа Серафима, который говорил, что он посетил свою епархию. Совершал Богослужение, исполнял требы, а также столкнулся с проблемой получения новых паспортов, которые верующие не хотят брать и отказываются от поездок и даже от пенсии.

 

Постановили:

 

Доклад принять к сведению.

 

 Слушали:

 

23. Епископа Антония, который также отметил, что его прихожане отказываются получать новые паспорта. А в общей сложности в епархии тихо и спокойно. Люди молятся, трудятся и ждут новых преследований из-за получения новых паспортов.

 

 Постановили:

 

Доклад принять к сведению.

 

Слушали:

 

24. Епископа Иринарха, который сказал, что он в своей епархии проводил Богослужение и столкнулся с той же проблемой, т.е. люди не хотят получать новые паспорта.  

 

Постановили:

 

Доклад принять к сведению.

 

 

Слушали:

 

25. Митрополита Валентина, который внёс предложение об изменении управления Яранской епархией. Преосвященного Епископа Антония назначить управляющим епархией с титулом Яранского и Вяткинского. Далее Председатель сказал, что Преосвященному Епископу Антонию исполняется в августе месяце 80 лет, поэтому хорошо было бы возвести Епископа Антония в сан АРХИЕПИСКОПА.

 

Постановили:

 

Утвердить Преосвященного Епископа Антония, Викарного Суздальской Епархии, УПРАВЛЯЮЩИМ с титулом Яранского и Вяткинского, а также возвести его в сан АРХИЕПИСКОПА.

 

 

Слушали:

 

26.  Митрополита Валентина, который внёс на рассмотрение Синода предложение о хиротонии игумена о. Андрея (Маклакова), второго священника при Свято-Никольском храме г. Нью Йорка.

27. Архиепископа Серафима, который зачитал представление игумена Андрея (Маклакова) в кандидаты во епископа.

28. Епископа Севастиана, который зачитал Автобиографию о. Андрея (Маклакова).

 

Постановили:

 

Представление принять к сведению и разослать Автобиографию о. Андрея (Маклакова) всем Преосвященным для отзыва.

 

Заседание Архиерейского Синода закончилось пением «Достойно есть».

 

ПРЕДСЕДАТЕЛЬ

АРХИЕРЕЙСКОГО СИНОДА

РОССИЙСКОЙ ПРАВОСЛАВНОЙ ЦЕРКВИ

 

______________________________  ,

Митрополит Суздальский и Владимирский.

 

 

2. Архиепископ Феодор

3. Ахиепископ Серафим

4. Епископ Антоний

5. Епископ Тимофей

6. Епископ Амвросий

7. Епископ Иларион

 8. Епископ Геронтий

9. Епископ Севастиан

10. Секретарь Архиерейского Синода

 

Митрофорный протоиерей

Аркадий Маковецкий

 

 

 

Энциклика Архиепископа Григория и письма в его поддержку со стороны болгарского духовенства

 

 

 

 

 

Beloved Clergy and Parishioners in the Lord, Grace and Peace be with you.

 

SUNDAY OF THE EIGHTH WEEK

The Reading is from the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians [§ 124].

     1   10Brethren, I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all be speaking the same thing, and that schisms may not be among you, but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same sentiment┘.

 

     In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.  Amen.

     Providentially, the Epistle reading this Sunday talks about schisms.  We should all understand that schisms first take place when there is disobedience to the laws of God.   Invariably, there will be people who will not submit to disobedience, and rightly so.  Therefore, we have a schism when we are not of the "same mind and in the same sentiment."  We must all be of the same mind and the same sentiment as Christ expressed in the holy Church.

     This week we are presenting my epistle describing the events leading up to Metropolitan Valentine's creating a schism in our Church.  After this, we are enclosing a letter of support from our Bulgarian clergy. Finally, at the end, we have included the Holy Canons referred to in my epistle for your reference.

    

Please pray for:

     Maria, who is ill.  Non-Orthodox.

 

In Christ,

 

+Archbishop Gregory, and those with me.

 

 

Epistle to the beloved clergy and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church

 

By Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado

 

"Now I beseech you, brethren, look out for those who cause the divisions and the stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them [Rom. 16:17]."

 

"For there must be also heresies among you, that the approved might become manifest among you. [1 Cor. 11:19]."

 

I wish to inform our Christ-loving flock of the latest events in the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) in America.

 

We joined the ROAC because of its confession of the Faith and canonical succession, the two essential requirements to be Orthodox. On the 2nd of December of 2001, by the mercy of God, I was consecrated a vicar bishop of the Synod, with the authority to shepherd the flock of Christ which would be formed in America and abroad through my efforts.

 

By the grace of God the Church grew, and because of this increase, the next year I was made a ruling bishop.  With this responsibility I had the same authority as before, yet for some mysterious reason, although the Russian Church had established dioceses in America since the 1700s, a new diocese was created for me, that of Denver and Colorado. As time went on and as God blessed, the Church grew and clergymen were added across the country and abroad, through my humble efforts.

 

Approximately six months after I was made a ruling bishop, for another unexplainable reason, an administrator was named for the United States, excluding Colorado. This was Archpriest Vladimir Shiskoff. He lived in New Jersey with his wife; and his church was the only one subject to Metropolitan Valentine. No explanation was given why there was an administrator priest appointed by the Metropolitan, when there was a ruling Bishop in the same country. This of course was contrary to the Holy Canons of Orthodoxy and Ukaz #362 of Saint Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

Last year, two of our clergymen, Father Dionysi McGowan and Father Fotios Roseboro, visited Father Vladimir and celebrated the liturgy with him. During the liturgy, Father Vladimir invited a stranger into the altar and had him take Holy Communion. After the service was over, the fathers spoke to the stranger and learned that his name was Father Peter LaGruta, and that he belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Yes, he was an ecumenist and did not belong to our Church, yet was given Holy Communion by the "administrator," Father Vladimir. It was learned that Father Vladimir gave Communion to lay people of the Greek archdiocese that day also. Fathers Dionysi and Fotios wrote a report, witnessing to the uncanonical actions of Fr. Vladimir, which they sent to me so that I might submit it to the Metropolitan.

 

We all know of the Metropolitan's visit to the United States in April of 2004, and we all followed his ordeal of having quintuple-bypass heart surgery. As the Metropolitan recovered slowly, and his ill heart was made strong, many faithful gathered from all over the country to congratulate him and encourage him. On Pentecost, in accordance with the Ukaz #47 of the Synod of Bishops dated March 7/20, 2004, I was elevated to the rank of Archbishop with the added dignity of wearing a diamond cross on my klobuk. This was given to me, it was said, because of my missionary activity in building up the Church. Our clergy and faithful had gathered from all over the country to participate in this joyous event. Of course the clergy and faithful from Bulgaria and the countries abroad could not attend, yet they were here in spirit.

 

During the Metropolitan's visit to the United States, I explained to him that I needed help to govern the Church in America. I suggested that our Hieromonk Andrew Maklakov be ordained a bishop to help me in this, with the stipulation that he would remain in the monastery.  During this time tragic events occurred. The weak heart of Metropolitan Valentine, which was now healed physically, became haughty and waxed bold. He beheld the Church that was under my authority at peace and growing, zealously supporting my labors, while his attempt to govern America through his "administrator" was not flourishing at all. The Metropolitan, via his Ukaz #114, therefore decided to illegally take Father Andrew away from the monastery and place him under his own authority in New Jersey, as Father Vladimir's assistant. The reason given was that Father Vladimir was senile and needed help.  I objected to Father Andrew's move, stating that this was against the Holy Canons, and I also withdrew my petition to have Father Andrew ordained. The Metropolitan informed us, however, that he, the Metropolitan, was not subject to the Holy Canons of the Church, but rather as Metropolitan was following something called the Kniga Consistorium. This is a pre-revolutionary document which had Latin influence and was certainly against the Canons, since it gave almost papal powers to a Metropolitan. He told Father Andrew that the Holy Canons were written for Greeks, but that the Russian Church follows the Kniga Consistorium. This was all a novelty and unacceptable. When we are ordained, we make vows to uphold the Holy Canons and other teachings of the Church, not some innovation.

 

Unfortunately, Father Andrew did not have the courage to resist the orders of the Metropolitan. Father Andrew broke his vows which he made when he became a monk, and placed himself under the Metropolitan, who promised to make him a bishop. The Metropolitan wanted Father Andrew to move to New Jersey and live in a room in Father Vladimir's house, to be his helper. He would also have to get a job in the world to support himself. The Metropolitan therefore came into another bishop's diocese and stole one of his priests. This is a violation of the Holy Canons [Canons 63 and 88 of Carthage; 15 and 16 of the Holy Apostles; 15 and 19 of Sardica; 17 and 18 of the 6th Ecumenical Council; 3 and 7 of Antioch; 15 and 16 of the 1st Ecumenical Council; 13 and 20 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, etc. as well as 34 and 39 of the Holy Apostles]. All these Canons were written to control a bishop's avarice, and the Holy Fathers call such actions "episcopal adultery," since every bishop is "married" to his diocese.

 

The Metropolitan then went on a short trip to Massachusetts, where he received certain priests who, for obvious reasons, wanted to enter the Church through Father Vladimir. Father Vladimir, as we know from past experience (i.e., inviting Hieromonk Elia Yenovkian, the Monophysite), has a reputation of wanting to receive anyone, regardless of their qualifications. One of these priests was Father Michael Graves, who had petitioned me a year earlier to enter the Church but did not want to convert from his ecumenical ideas. He came from Anglicanism to the Antiochian Church without Holy Baptism. He had with him another "priest" and "deacon" in the same condition. They also had 180 people with them in Haiti who were never baptized, and Father Michael did not want them to submit to Baptism, even though they also had only been poured upon with three buckets of water. All these people were received by Metropolitan Valentine, who recognized and accepted their Protestant-style baptism by an illegal and false use of economia. This also is an uncanonical act (Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles; Canons 1 and 91 of St. Basil the Great, etc.). Canon 50 of the Holy Apostles and 91 of St. Basil speak about the prope! r form of Baptism, whereas the rest condemn or teach against the recognition of any validity in heretical mysteries or priesthood.

 

While in Boston, Metropolitan Valentine also received into ROAC, with the recommendation of Fr. Vladimir, four priests: Fathers Spyridon Schneider, Christopher Johnson, Victor Melehov, and Michael Marcinowski, all of whom, without proper reasons, abandoned their true confessing Orthodox Church of Greece, under Archbishop Makarios (see Canon 7 of Antioch).  Metropolitan Valentine also accepted the priestmonk Ephraim Bertolette who received ordination five times, the last two being from the old calendar Greek Church to the Ecumenical new calendar Greek Church (see Can! on 68 of the Holy Apostles).  He is known for his Cyprianite practice of giving communion to all "Orthodox Christians" regardless of their jurisdiction.

 

As the Metropolitan determined in his mind to take Fr. Andrew, I again insisted that Father Andrew should not leave the monastery. The Metropolitan ultimately said that if I did not obey him, he would punish me. I did not cower before this threat, and dismissed it, and proceeded to present alternative ideas to govern this country. It seemed to me that the Metropolitan wanted to govern this country from abroad (and in an uncanonical, destructive manner), which we know is one of the reasons why ROAC broke away from ROCA, when they wished to govern Russia from Manhattan, citing Ukaz #362 of Saint Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Church.

 

The Metropolitan told me to put my ideas in writing and submit a report to the Synod. I started on this immediately, and, while writing the report, I also explained to the Synod the Metropolitan's actions while in the United States. The report turned out to be what it should be, an accusatory letter. After I sent the report, I summarized the accusations which should be addressed against the Metropolitan. They were:

 

  1. Illegally receiving three clergymen and 180 people in Haiti into the Church without Holy Baptism, and thus introducing an unacceptable tradition into the Orthodox Church, contrary to the Canons;

 

  2. Not punishing, but promoting Father Vladimir Shiskoff AFTER it was manifestly proven to the Metropolitan by the testimonies of Father Dionysi and Father Fotios that he is a crypto-Cyprianite, an ecumenist;

 

  3. Having withdrawn my petition for Father Andrew to be ordained a bishop, the Metropolitan illegally took him. He was one of my monks, who lived in my monastery; and to do this is against the Holy Canons.

 

  4. And the most important, which resulted in all the above lawlessness, is that Metropolitan Valentine, even though he does not live here or speak the language, wants to rule America from a foreign country through the priest administrator Father Vladimir Shiskoff, when there is already a canonical, Orthodox ruling-bishop here. (See Canon 23 of the Second Carthage Council, and Ukaz #362.)

 

These accusations were first put forth on June 17, 2004. After I sent my report to the Synod, I telephoned Suzdal and received confirmation that my letter was in the hands of Archbishop Theodore and Bishop Irenarch, both members of the Synod. The Synod notified Metropolitan Valentine of my accusations the next day, and the response was his shameless Ukaz #130, written a week later, which contains nine untrue and rapacious accusations by the Metropolitan against me, which he predated to June 16, 2004. This is a trick and supposedly means that the Synod will hear the Metropolitan's accusations before it hears mine.

 

This is the Metropolitan's deception, which will unfortunately implicate all the bishops of the Synod who are aware that I sent my accusations first. The Canons require that the accusations initially put forward must be heard and investigated first and that the accused not be allowed to make accusations until his name has been cleared. (Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Synod)

 

The Metropolitan's Ukaz #130 is a KGB-style document, in that it seeks to discredit the character of someone who does not submit to lawlessness. It shockingly revealed to us the malice and envy of Metropolitan Valentine. It accuses me of the sin of simony, of falsely accusing the "venerable" Father Vladimir, of not understanding the mystery and uniqueness of Baptism, of unjustly suspending clergymen, of writing the report to the Synod demanding an emergency meeting without the Metropolitan, of lying, of forgery, and of stealing. Then, at the end of the same document he retires me, as if he has the authority to retire a bishop: and all this only two weeks after he and the Synod elevated me to the rank of Archbishop, with the right to wear the diamond cross, a distinction granted to only one other Archbishop of the ROAC.

 

Yet, it seems that God blinded the Metropolitan in his slander against me, because he refers to my report which was dated June 17th in his Ukaz #130, which he dated June 16th. Slander by a clergyman, whether a Bishop or priest or deacon, is a sin that is punishable by deposition (Canon 25 of the Holy Apostles; and Canon 6 of the 2nd Ecumenical Council).

 

God, Who is over all, has seen the criminal actions of Metropolitan Valentine. This sin of open slander, which he made public by publishing it on the Internet before I had received it, and before any trial, was such a grievous attack on me that punishment from God came quickly.

 

While I was in Bulgaria and on the Holy Mountain praying for our faithful and for God's mercy during this time of trial, the Metropolitan tried to leave this country with an enormous amount of money which he had sewn into his trousers in special pockets. He was caught by U.S. customs agents and, as we were informed, initially by Fr. Dionysi, was arrested and strip-searched.

 

We made inquiries and learned that all the money that was on him, in the amount of almost $100,000, was taken away. He was escorted back to Russia by two Russian security officials from the airline "Aeroflot." If he returns to America, he will have to appear in court to defend himself. We were told that it may be up to 10 years before the Metropolitan will be allowed to travel within the United States again.

 

The initial police report stated the following:

 

ANATOLY P. RUSANTSOV

DOB: MARCH 3, 1939

ALIAS: METROPOLITAN VALENTINE

HEIGHT: 6'

WEIGHT: 245 lbs

WHITE MALE

DISTINGUISHING MARKS: GOLD CAPPED TEETH

DATE OF ARREST: JULY 3, 2004 [SATURDAY]

TIME: 1900 HOURS

ENTITY: U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL

1st HEARING: AUGUST 3, 2004 [TUESDAY]

WHERE: FEDERAL COURT, NY, NY

CRIME: SMUGGLING [Currency, foreign and domestic]

 

Upon his return to Russia, the Metropolitan immediately opened a Synod meeting to present new accusations against me. Most of the previous accusations of Ukaz #130 were craftily set aside because it was obviously a letter of malice, and it accomplished nothing other than making his shame a spectacle to the world. In a letter that I sent to the Holy Synod on July 6th, I asked for the repentance of Metropolitan Valentine for writing such a slanderous letter, and I ended this letter by saying "┘. I await his wholehearted repentance in writing and I expect from you, the Holy Synod, the fortitude, the morality and the ethical conduct of bishops professing piety."  I received no answer. On July 21st, I again wrote the Synod a letter in which I said: "Do not doubt in the least that God is beholding your actions.  Understand this very clearly that the sin of schism will be marked on your souls if you pass judgment on me unjustly." I again received no answer. 

 

How can one explain why this lamentable tragedy has occurred? I believe that Metropolitan Valentine was spiritually corrupted by the power hungry remnants of the Grabbe family, Retired-Bishop Anthony Grabbe, Fr. Vladimir Shiskoff, and Matushka Anastasia Shatilova. They quickly and accurately determined that Metropolitan Valentine was not well educated in Canon Law and that he could be manipulated by them. Slowly, Metropolitan Valentine was convinced by them to make Fr. Vladimir an "administrator," and then to accept their ideas about using the never-used Kniga Con! sistorium and their all-encompassing false theories about receiving everybody into the Church by economia to build up the Church in record time. The false and improper use of economia, we all know, will lead to the heresy of Ecumenism. It is therefore my responsibility to warn the flock entrusted to me of the canonical transgressions of Metropolitan Valentine. Listed briefly they are:

 

He believes he is not subject to the Holy Canons but rather to a document called the Kniga Consistorium which contradicts and overthrows the Canons, and makes him a mini Pope. I first heard about this book of rules approximately a year ago through the Grabbe family [which use over the Rudder is in violation of Canons 1 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, 2 of the 6th Ecumenical Council, and 1 of the 7th Ecumenical Council, as well as the 3rd confession of faith and oath of a hierarch at his consecration and Ukaz #362 of the Patriarch Tikhon and the Russian Church.= 5D

 

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #114 and enter my diocese and take my clergyman for his own use without my permission [in violation of Canons 63 and 88 of Carthage; 15 and 16 of the Holy Apostles; 15 of Sardica; 17 of the 6th Ecumenical Council; 3 of Antioch; 15 and 16 of the 1st Ecumenical Council; 14 and 20 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, etc. as well as 34 and 39 of the Holy Apostles].

 

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #130, and think that he has the authority to retire me from serving the Holy Mysteries and to remove me from my diocese with no canonical justification and without the prior approval of the Synod. This is not the Latin Church, and he is not the Pope! 

 

It is by virtue of the Kniga that he imagined he could write his Ukaz #130, and believe that he might take people from my diocese and ordain them on his own authority (Nicholas Stanosheck to the diaconate).

 

He used KGB tactics by viciously slandering me publicly and before the Holy Synod, saying I am guilty of the acts of simony, false accusations, lying, stealing, and forgery. [A Bishop or clergyman shall be deposed if he bears false witness, Canons 6 of 2nd Ecumenical Council and 25 of the Holy Apostles].

 

He is harboring a priest, unfit to stand before the holy altar, who holds a Cyprianite ecclesiology, Father Vladimir Shiskoff; and, after canonical accusation was presented against this priest, the Metropolitan even dared to promote him to the rank of protopresbyter [violating Canons 45, 46, 47, and 68 of the Holy Apostles]. Father Vladimir, as administrator, also permits intermarriage between Orthodox and Roman Catholics (violating Canon 14 of the Second Ecumenical Council), and instructs members of ROAC to commune in other pseudo-Orthodox Churches (the 1983 Anathem! a Against Ecumenism). By not reprimanding and stopping this activity, Metropolitan Valentine is condoning his actions.

 

He wishes to govern and maintain foreign rule of America by an administrator-priest, Fr. Vladimir, even though a canonical, Orthodox ruling-bishop already exists here, all of which overthrows the hierarchal order of the Church and also contradicts St. Patriarch Tikhon's Ukaz #362.  

 

By receiving approximately 180 Haitians with their Protestant-style "baptisms" by effusion, he has accepted a Latin idea that Holy Baptism exists outside the Church, which is contrary to Orthodoxy and is ecumenical/heretical, according to the Holy Fathers (Canons 45, 46, 47, and 68 of the Holy Apostles; and 50 and 49 of the same; Canon 1 of the 3rd Regional Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian; Canons 1 and 91 of St. Basil the Great); by doing this he falls under the Anathema of the Russian Church Abroad of 1983 in failing to distinguish the mysteries of the heretics from those of the Orthodox, for he professed before witnesses that "everybody is baptized today."

 

According to the opinion of Father Vladimir and the other newly accepted clergy, Metropolitan Valentine believes that the Jerusalem Patriarchate and other "true" unidentified Orthodox Churches have the grace of the Holy Spirit. 

 

We see, therefore, that a new Grabbe-Lourye type ecclesiology has been accepted by Metropolitan Valentine. This new faith says that all those who call themselves True Orthodox are in fact truly Orthodox. According to Metropolitan Valentine's Protocol #48 against me, dated July 15, 2004, they are to be received into the Church without examination. It says: "The Russian Orthodox Church simply receives, without examination, all those True Orthodox Christians who considered themselves to be as such in other True Orthodox Churches."

 

Rightly therefore did those who followed Metropolitan Valentine change the name of their Church from ROAC to AROC, to reflect their new way of believing. This explains why Father John Claypool was ordered by Metropolitan Valentine to immediately remove from his web site references to the Jerusalem Patriarchate and other uncanonical groups as graceless, while Olga Mitrenina in Russia is able to maintain on her web site references to HOCNA and their leaders as "Orthodox Pillars." Metropolitan Valentine has links to her website on his official Russian website.  Therefore, the AROC, because it does not rightly distinguish the boundaries of the Church, receiving all without an examination, should be considered ecumenically minded.

 

What is the future for us? This question should not overwhelm any, for we have not changed our Faith. We confess true Orthodoxy the same today as we always have. Practically all of our faithful have remained true to the Faith and the Holy Canons. Unfortunately, a few convert clergy, their families, and a few laymen who have not yet understood that the Canons reign over the bishops and not the bishops over the Canons, have been disobedient, deceived and for the present time, lost.

 

On Saturday, July 24th, the final decision was made by Metropolitan Valentine and those with him. We had been waiting to see how they would act; and they have decided to pass judgment on me, and not the Metropolitan.  They announced that they were breaking communion with me. Metropolitan Valentine has then caused a schism and he will answer for it. We call upon the faithful in Russia not to submit to this lawlessness and this schism created by Metropolitan Valentine.  He has betrayed his Church, his bishops and his people. They must resist the stealing of their Church by a few corrupt individuals in America and Russia. They must search out the ROAC bishops in Russia who may not know what is happening, to inform them. We cannot communicate with them because their addresses and phone numbers have never been given to us, even though we have requested them numerous times.

 

We will have no prayerful contact with AROC in this country or ROAC in Russia until they show true repentance and submit to the laws of the Church. We the faithful of the Orthodox Church will let them depart on their destructive ways, but we will remain and continue to walk in the straight and narrow way of Christ our Savior. It is up to us to remain immovable in the Faith, that we might behold God's care and loving providence for us. I have not been hindered, and will not be hindered by any of the actions taken in Russia.  We rightly consider ourselves the true Orthodox Church in America, and will work for the growth of Orthodoxy. Amen!

 

With much love for all of you, asking for your holy prayers,

 

+ Gregory

 

Archbishop of Denver and Colorado

at Dormition Skete, July 13/26, 2004 - Feast of the Synaxis of the Archangel Gabriel; "Axion Estin" Icon of the Theotokos.

 

 

++++++++ LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM OUR CLERGY IN BULGARIA ++++++++

July 17, 2004

 

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

Clerics and faithful of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church,

 

We, the Bulgarian clergy and faithful of ROAC, are very confused and saddened on account of the recent events in the USA, concerning the life of our Church there. We hoped that Metropolitan Valentine's pastoral visit to the USA would be beneficial for the settlement of the administrative structure of ROAC in America.

 

The elevation of Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado in the dignity of Archbishop was a good sign for us, because it seemed very strange that our Church had a ruling bishop in America, who is restricted to his own diocese in Colorado, but over the whole rest of the USA there is another "ruler" - "administrator", who is a simple priest. So we had a good hope that Archbishop Gregory's well-deserved elevation meant an adjustment and correction of the existing administrative chaos in the USA.

 

But surprisingly almost immediately after that, we read accusations against the new Archbishop from Metropolitan Valentine in his Ukaz #130. These accusations became a matter of common knowledge through the Internet, which we think was not correct. Unfortunately, in this case, we cannot see a spiritual approach in deciding the problems of our Church in America. Even if we assume that all accusations against Archbishop Gregory are true, the real cure is not possible if we repeat the sin of Ham; on the contrary, we should be followers of Shem and Japhet, who covered the nakedness of their father Noah.

 

But in fact, we cannot support the accusations against Archbishop Gregory. One of them is that he violates the dogma of Baptism and requires all people, who convert to ROAC to be baptized. It is difficult to find a reason to dispute the problem of receiving people into the Church, i.e. the problem of akreibia/oeconomia, (strictness/economy) when an official statement of our Church concerning other Church jurisdictions does not exist. That is why any ruling bishop is able to use his own discretion in every single case of reception into the Church, until the Synod makes an official proclamation concerning who is Orthodox and who is not.

 

Considering the situation in the Bulgarian parishes of the ROAC: until now, a year and a half after the formation of the first parish of All Saints in Sofia, we have not received any official documents from the Synod of the ROAC in Suzdal regarding our subordination to the Metropolitan or to the Synod. The only official documents we have are the Paschal and Nativity Encyclicals from the Metropolitan and our appointment certificates for the respective parishes in Bulgaria from Archbishop Gregory. It is obvious that these parishes of the ROAC in Bulgaria exist only because of the missionary work of Archbishop Gregory, and if he was not such a genuine orthodox bishop we wouldn't be in the ROAC at all. We never though that our bishop was anyone other than Archbishop Gregory.

 

So His visit to Bulgaria, in the end of June of this year, did not destroy the life of our communities at all: on the contrary, we were very glad to see Vladyka Gregory, to serve with him and to be under his spiritual guidance. It was also a very joyous event that we had the ordination of Deacon Marian, who wants wholeheartedly to serve Christ and His Church.

 

During the whole period of our membership in ROAC, Archbishop Gregory was the primary and sole representative of the authorities of our Church, who cared for our spiritual needs and always supported us.

 

Continuing our reflections about the administrative status of the Bulgarian church, we must make mention of what happened to the ROAC mission in Switzerland. We were invited to go there and to take care of the members of our Church in Geneva, with the blessing of the Metropolitan. After three visits there, we found out that there was some gossip and slander against us, the aim of which was to discredit the two priests from Bulgaria. Despite our written defense, very soon we found out that Metropolitan Valentine decided to forbid us from visiting the parish in Geneva. Without an investigation of the real situation, we were told simply that he has other plans for Switzerland. We were very grieved at this decision, because we believe that if there were mistakes on our part, we should be told exactly what they are, for the benefit of our pastoral work in the future. Unfortunately, nothing of the kind happened, we were simply removed from our service in Switzerland without any clearly explained reasons. In addition, there were people from France who wanted to join our Church, but now their transfer has failed. We do not know what happened to them.

 

The events in Switzerland revealed to us something very strange: in our Church there is a favorable ground for slanders, gossip and lies, while at the same time, the Church herself suffers from slanders, gossip and lies from the enemies outside of her.

 

So all these facts, and especially the recent events in the USA, confirmed our fears about the Church authority's approach to certain questions concerning the life of our Church. The lack of clear criteria and regulations promotes incorrect speculations, unclear interpretations and a double standard.

 

In these last times, we must be true confessors of the Orthodox faith, ignoring our own pettiness, and we must be true to the vows, which we gave in front of the Holy Table. This is a particular obligation of Orthodox Bishops. Therefore, we will pray fervently for our hierarchs, that they acquire divine wisdom in ruling the Church.

 

With love in Christ,

 

The clergy of the Bulgarian Church under the jurisdiction of ROAC

(This letter was written before the final decision of the Synod.)

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++References ++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

ANATHEMA OF 1983

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH ABROAD

 

   TO THOSE who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of ecumenism under the pretext ! of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, ANATHEMA.

 

CANONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

 

CANON XV (15)

   If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the list of clerics, abandoning his own province, departs to another, and after deserting it entirely, sojourns in another, contrary to the mind of his own Bishop, we bid him to officiate no longer; especially if his Bishop summons him to return, and he has not obeyed and persists in his disorderliness; however, he may commune there as layman.

(Cf. cc. XV, XVI of the lst; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; cc XVII XVIII

of the 6th; cc. X, XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI XVII of the

Sardican; and cc. LXIII, XCVIII of Carthage.)

 

CANON XVI (16)

   If, on the other hand, the Bishop with whom they are associating, admits them as clergymen in defiance of the deprivation prescribed against them, he shall be excommunicated as a teacher of disorder.

(Cf. cc. VII, XVIII of the 6th; c. III of Antioch; and cc. LXIII, LXIV of Carthage.)

 

CANON XXV (25)

   Any Bishop, or presbyter, or Deacon that is taken in the act of committing fornication, or perjury, or theft, shall be deposed, but shall not be excommunicated, for Scripture says: "You shall not exact revenge twice for the same offense." The same rule applies also to the rest of clergymen.

c. IX of the 1st; cc. IV, XXI of the 6th; c. I of Neocaesarea; c. XXXV of

Carthage; cc. III, XVII, XXXII, XLIV, LI, and LXX of Basil.)

 

CANON XXXIV (34)

   It befits us bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him.. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

(cc. V I, VII of the 1st; cc. II, III of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd;

c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)

 

CANON XXXIX (39)

   Let Presbyters and Deacons do nothing without the consent of the Bishop. For he is the one entrusted with the Lord's people, and it is from him that an accounting will be demanded with respect to their souls.

(c. XIV of the 7th; c. LVII of Laod.; cc. VI, VII, XLI, L of Carthage.)

 

CANON XLV (45)

   Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that only joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he has permitted them to perform any service as Clergyman, let him be deposed.

 

CANON XLVI (46)

   We order any Bishop or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretic's baptism or sacrifice be deposed; for "what consonance has Christ with Belial? or what part has the believer with an unbeliever?"

 

CANON XLVII (47)

   If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and for failing to distinguish priests from pseudo-priests.

 

CANON XLIX (49)

   If any Bishop or Presbyter baptize anyone not into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Lord's ordinance, but into three beginningless beings or into three sons or into three comforters, let him be deposed."

 

CANON L (50)

   If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions in making one baptism, but only a single immersion that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed . For the Lord did not say, Baptize into my death, but, "Go you and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

 

CANON LXVIII (68)

   If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon accepts a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergymen.

(Apostolic Canons XLVI, XLVII; c. VIII of the lst; c. VII of the 2nd; c. XCV of the 6th

and cc. LVII, LXXVII, and c. I of Carthage.)

 

FIRST ECUMENICAL SYNOD

 

CANON XV (15)

   Because of much disturbance and the mutinies which took place, it has seemed best to do away altogether with the custom which obtained contrary to the Apostolic Canon in some places, so as not to allow either a Bishop or a Presbyter or a Deacon to go from one city to another. If after the holy and great Synod's definition, anyone should attempt to do such a thing, or has actually undertaken to do such a thing, let the resulting affair be invalidated by all means, and let him be reinstated in the church in which the Bishop or Presbyter in question was ordained.

(Apostolic Canons XIV, XV; c. VI of the 4th. cc. III XXI of Antioch;

cc. I, XVI of Sardica, c. LVII of Car.)

 

CANON XVI (16)

   Any Presbyters or Deacons, or other persons covered by the Canon, who take the risk, without having the fear of God before their eyes, or keeping aware of the ecclesiastical Canon, of departing from their own church, they must not be admitted at all in another church, but they must be stringently forced to return to their own parish, or, in case they insist, it is proper for them to be excluded from Communion. If on the other hand, anyone should surreptitiously snatch away one belonging to another and ordain him in his own church, without the consent of his Bishop, from whom the one covered by the Canon departed, let the ordination be invalid.

 

SECOND ECUMENICAL SYNOD

 

CANON VI (6)

oregoing statements, should dare either to annoy the emperor's ears or to trouble courts of secular authorities or an ecumenical council to the affrontment of all the Bishops of the diocese, let no such person be allowed to present any information whatever, because of his having thus roundly insulted the Canons and ecclesiastical discipline.

 

FOURTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

 

CANON I (1)

   We have judged it right that the canons of the Holy Fathers made in every synod even until now, should remain in force.

 

CANON XIII (13)

   Strange and unknown clergymen without letters commendatory from their own Bishop, are absolutely prohibited from officiating in another city.

 

CANON XIV (14)

   Since in certain provinces it is permitted to the readers and singers to marry, the holy Synod has decreed that it shall not be lawful for any of them to take a wife that is heterodox. But those who have already begotten children of such a marriage, if they have already had their children baptized among the heretics, must bring them into the communion of the Catholic Church; but if they have not had them baptized, they may not hereafter baptize them among heretics, nor give them in marriage to a heretic, or a Jew, or a heathen, unless the person marrying the orthodox child shall promise to come over to the orthodox faith. And if any one shah transgress this decree of the holy synod, let him be subjected to canonical censure.

 

CANON XX (20)

   It shall not be lawful, as we have already decreed, for clergymen officiating in one church to be appointed to the church of another city, but they shall cleave to that in which they were first thought worthy to minister; those, however, being excepted, who have been driven by necessity from their own country, and have therefore removed to another church. And if, after this decree, any bishop shall receive a clergyman belonging to another bishop, it is decreed that both the received and the receiver shall be excommunicated until such time as the clergyman who has removed shall have returned to his own church.

 

SIXTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

 

CANON II (2)

alse inscription by certain persons who have taken in hand to barter the truth. If, nevertheless, anyone be caught innovating with regard to any of the said Canons, or attempting. to subvert it, he shall be responsible in respect of that Canon and shall receive the penalty which it prescribes and be chastised by that Canon which he has offended.

 

CANON XVII (17)

   Inasmuch as Clergymen of various churches have abandoned their own churches, in which they were ordained, and have run over to other Bishops, and without the consent of their own Bishop have had themselves enrolled in the others' churches, and as a result of this they came to be insubordinate, we decree that, beginning with the month of January of the last fourth indiction, not a single one of all the clergymen, regardless of what rank he happens to be in, has permission, unless furnished by a written dimissory of his own Bishop, to be enrolled in a different church. For, whoever fails to abide by this rule hereafter, but, on the contrary, so far as lies in his power disgraces him who bestowed the ordination o! n him, let both him and the one who illogically accepted him be deposed.

 

CANON XVIII (18)

   Clergymen who on the pretext of an incursion of barbarians, or as a result of any other circumstance, have emigrated, whenever their exigency has ceased, or the incursions of barbarians, on account of which they made their departure, are commanded to return to their own churches, and not to stay away from them for a long time without a good excuse. If anyone fails to conduct himself agreeably to the present Canon, let him be excommunicated until he returns to his own church. Let this same rule apply also to the Bishop who is keeping him.

(Apostolic Canon XV; cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th;

c. XVII of the 6th; c. XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch;

cc. XV, XVI, XIX of Sardica; cc. LXIII, XCVIII of Carthage.)

 

SEVENTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD

 

CANON I (1)

   For those who have been allotted a clerical dignity, the representations of canonical ordinances amount to testimonies and directions. Gladly accepting these, we sing to the Lord God with David, the spokesman of God, the following words: "I have delighted in the way of your testimonies as much as in all wealth," and Your testimonies which You have commanded witness justice . . . Your testimonies are justice forever: give me understanding, and I shall live" (Ps. 119:14, 138 and 144). And if forever the prophetic voice commands us to keep the testimonies of God, and to live in them, it is plain that they remain unwavering and rigid. For Moses, too, the beholder of God, says so in the following words: "To! them there is nothing to add, and from them there is nothing to remove" (Deut. 12:32). And the divine Apostle Peter, exulting in them, cries: "which things the angels would like to peep into" (I Pet. 1:12). And Paul says: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel besides that which ye have received, let him be anathema" (Gal. 1:8). Seeing that these things are so and are attested to us, and rejoicing at them "as one that finds great spoil" (Ps. 119:162), we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, arid we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six Holy Ecumenica! l Synods and of the ones assemble d regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our Holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penalty anyone whom they make liable to a penalty. For "Let your conduct be free from avarice; being content with such things asare at hand" (Heb. 13:5), explicitly cries the divine apostle Paul, who ascended into the third heaven and heard unspeakable words.  (II Cor. 12:2-4).!

(c. I of the 4th; c. II of the 6th.)

 

THE CANON OF THE THIRD HOLY REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD IN CARTHAGE IN THE TIME OF CYPRIAN INTERPRETED

 

the Eucharist. For we ought to be well aware, and not ignorant, of the fact that it has been written: "let not the oil of a sinner anoint my head" (Ps. 140:6); which indeed even in olden times the Holy Spirit made known in psalms, lest anyone, having been sidetracked and led astray from the straight way, be anointed by the heretics, who are opponents of Christ. But how shall one who is, not a priest, but a sacrilegist and sinner, pray for the one baptized, when the Bible says that "God heareth not sinners; but if anyone be a worshiper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth" (John 9:31). Through the holy Church we can conceive a remission of sins) But who can give what he has not himself? Or how ca! n one do spiritual works who has become destitute of Holy Spirit? For this reason anyone joining the Church ought to become renewed, in order that within through the holy elements he become sanctified. For it is written: "Ye shall be holy, just as I myself am holy, saith the Lord" (Lev. 19:2; 20:7), in order that even one who has been duped by specious arguments may shed this very deception in true baptism in the true Church when as a human being he comes to God and seeks a priest, but, having gone astray in error, stumbles upon a sacrilegist. For to sympathize with persons who have been baptized by heretics is tantamount to approving the baptism administered by heretics. For one cannot conquer in part, or van! quish anyone partially. If he was able to baptize, he succeeded also i n imparting the Holy Spirit. If he was unable, because, being outside, he had no Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize the next person. There being but one baptism, and there being but one Holy Spirit, there is also but one Church, founded by Christ our Lord upon oneness and unity. And for this reason whatever they do is false and empty and vain, everything being counterfeit and unauthorized. For nothing that they do can be acceptable and desirable with God. In fact, the Lord calls them His foes and adversaries in the Gospels: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:30). And the blissful Apostle John, who kept the Lord's commandments, stated beforehand in his Epistle: "ye have heard that the antichrist shall come; but even now there have come to be many antichrists" (I John 2:18). Hence we know that it is the last hour. They came out of us, but they were not of us. Hence we too ought to understand, and think, that enemies of the Lord, and those called antichrists, could not give grace to the Lord. And for this reason we who are with the Lord, and who are upholding the oneness and unity of the Lord, and after the measure of His worth imbuing ourselves therewith, exercising His priesthood in the Church, we ought to disapprove and refuse and reject, and treat as profane, everything done by His opponents, that is, foes and antichrists. And to those who from error and crookedness come for knowledge of the true and ecclesiastic faith we ought to give freely the mystery of divine power, of unity as well as of faith, and of truth.

 

SECOND COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE

 

CANON XXIII (23)

   It has pleased the Council to decree that Mauritania Stifensis, on account of the vastness of its territory, has been permitted, as it requested, to have a primate, or chief Bishop, of its own, with the consent of all the Primates of the African provinces and of all the Bishops thereof (as Primate of the Numidian territory assigned to him by the Council).

 

CANON LXIII (63)

   It is decreed that no Bishop shall appropriate another's Cleric contrary to the wishes of his former Bishop. But if any Bishop should do so nevertheless, let him not commune any longer with others. (Ap. c, XV; cc. XV, XVI of the 1st; cc. V, X, XX, XXIII of the 4th; CC. XVII, XVIII 01 the 6th; c. XV of the 7th; c. III of Antioch; cc. XV, XVI, XIX of Sardica; c, XCVIII : of Carthage.)

 

CANON LXXXVIII (88)

   It has pleased the Council to decree that if anyone admits or offer reception to anyone from a strange Monastery, and should wish to induct him into the clergy, or should appoint anyone an abbot (or, in Greek, one called an hegumen) of his own Monastery, let the Bishop who does so and thereby separates himself from communion with the rest, content himself with communion of the laity. And let that person be no longer either a Cleric an Hegumen (Abbot).

 

CANONS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD AT ANTIOCH

 

CANON III (3)

   If any Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone else at all of those who belong to the priesthood, shall depart for another parish after leaving his own, and subsequently, having changed his position altogether, tries to stay in another parish for a long time, let him no longer celebrate liturgy, especially in case he is summoned by his own Bishop and admonished to return to the parish he belongs to, and fails to obey. But if he persists in the irregularity, he must be utterly deposed from liturgy, on the ground that there is no longer any possibility of his being reinstated. If, after he has been deposed from once for this reason, another Bishop admits him, the latter too shall be punished by a common Synod, on the gr! ound that he is violating the ecclesiastical laws.

 

CANON VII (7)

   Let no stranger be admitted without letter pacifical (of admittance).

 

 

CANONS OF THE REGIONAL COUNCIL HELD AT SARDICA

 

CANON XV (15)

   We enact that if any Bishop from a different diocese wants to appoint another's servant, without the consent of his Bishop, to any grade or rank, any such appointment shall be deemed invalid and ineffective. If any of us should permit themselves to do this, they ought to be both reminded and corrected by their brethren and fellow Bishops.

 

CANON XIX (19)

   These rules having been laid down in a saving and consistent manner, and with due regard for our honorable position as priests, and having pleased both God and men, they will not be able to acquire their full power and efficacy unless the decisions arrived at also entail a fear. For we ourselves have more than once known the divine and most reverend name of holy orders to have come into condemnation on account of the shameless behavior of a few. If, therefore, anyone should dare to do anything contrary to what has seemed best to all of us, in an endeavor to please egoism and self-conceit rather than God, let him know right now that he will be rendering himself answerable for a crime, and that he will forfeit both the honor and the office of the episcopate.

 

CANONS OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT

 

CANON I (1)

t is nevertheless incumbent upon us to guard against imitating the mistake. For the abusurdity is self-evident and perspicuous to all who have any share at all of ability to reason even in a small way. As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities-those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian-to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For ! although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch, however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or "economy&q! uot;) to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. As for the case of the Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since as though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition' actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries. I am aware that we have admitted to the chief seat of bishops the brethren in the party of Zonius2 and Satorinus who used to belong to that class. So that we are no longer able to distinguish those who were attached to that order from the Church, as much as to say tha t as a result of the acceptance of the bishops we have ipso facto made it a canonical obligation to allow them communion.

 

CANON XCI (91)

em cede us the confession of the other points in regard to the faith of which we have enumerated the proofs in writing. Finally, seeing that there are so many unwritten ones having such great force in regard to the mystery of the piety (i.e., of the religion), will they not permit us one word come to us from the Fathers? which we have come across still remaining among the unperverted churches as a result of an unaffected custom, having no small reason for its existence, nor contributing any short adjuvance to the power of the Mystery?