Announcement Concerning the Situation in Australia

We have learned from the foreign press of Australia of an attempt to create a false impression relative to an agreement between the Federation of Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia and a group who present themselves as the “Church of the GOC of Greece.”

From their publications it is clear that this agreement has only one objective: to obtain recognition of the sacraments performed by the “Autocephalous Church of Australia and America(!),” i.e. the ecclesiastical institution formed by the Federation of Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia. We have always known the disagreement between the communities and the Archdiocese of Australia. We knew very well that this disagreement was never for reasons of faith; it has to do with administrative issues. The communities were never willing to submit complete control of the churches, which were built by the sweat of simple immigrants, who are members of the community, to the Patriarchate. The issue is mostly one of economic control of the churches. For this reason they separated from the New Calendar Archdiocese of Australia and founded their own “Autocephalous” Church.

This “Autocephalous” Church also follows the New Calendar; it uses as its clergy mostly people who have come from the New Calendar Church, from which they do not differ at all in ecumenistic practices such as mixed marriages and shortened divine services; they accept into their ranks as members high-ranking Greek-Australian Freemasons, etc. The only exception is that the sacraments performed by clergy of the “Autocephalous” Church are not recorded in the registry office of the Greek Consulate. From the beginning this has been a device used to pressure the “Autocephalous” Church, and it expressed the preference of the Greek authorities for the other New Calendarist faction, i.e. the Archdiocese.

The issue of recognizing the sacraments of the “Autocephalous” Church concerns the Greek authorities; the “Autocephalous” Church could have resolved it with political or legal means. However, the solution which the Federation of Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia has found is absurd and offensive for the Genuine Orthodox Christians.

The sacraments of the GOC performed outside Greece are registered in the books of the Greek Consulate, but not indiscriminately. The clergymen who perform these sacraments must have been canonically ordained and not have been deposed.

The communities have as their Bishop a former New Calendarist clergyman of the Archdiocese of Athens who was “ordained” by individuals who do not have canonical ordination. Auxentios, who bears the title of Archbishop of Aegina, was “ordained” in 1996 by Maximus Ballianatos and Demetrios Biffe. The former was at one time Metropolitan of Cephalonia of the Church of the GOC of Greece; however, he was deposed in 1985 because of an illicit ordination which he performed, and later he was excommunicated when it was proven that he had lied under oath. The latter was a New Calendarist hieromonk who suddenly presented himself as the “Archbishop of Crete” without anyone knowing whence he came.

The group of Auxentios “of Aegina” is of infinitely small scope in Greece. If the sparse sacraments performed by their few “clergymen” are recorded by municipal registrars (which we doubt), this is undoubtedly due to the poor observance of governmental regulations on the part of said municipal registrars. Wherever the registrars fulfill their responsibilities, such sacraments are not listed.

Moreover, the sacraments performed by the clergy of the “Autocephalous” Church of Australia cannot be registered as GOC sacraments, because, very simply the clergymen in question have never been clergy of the GOC. They were and are New Calendarists. They were not transformed into Genuine Orthodox clergy simply by the signature of the honorable president of the Federation of Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia with the agreement of someone who bears the title of “Archbishop of the GOC.” Neither did entrusting the administration of the “Autocephalous” Church to a former New Calendarist clergyman who received a nonexistent “ordination” from those who bear the title of GOC, in order to return to Australia and liturgize once again as a New Calendarist for New Calendar parishes suddenly change them—as if through magic—into GOC clergymen.

Moreover, the use of certificates which bear the heading “Church of the GOC of Greece—Autocephalous Church of Australia and America” is at least absurd: how are they autocephalous when they are under a greater Church authority? It is obvious that the use of the name of the GOC is a pretext for the deceitful manner of getting the sacraments of the “Autocephalous” Church registered.

If they want their sacraments to be registered, they should go to the courts responsible for such things, “entering by the gate,” and obtain recognition for what they are in reality, and they should not take advantage of a name which does not belong to them, because “he who enters in not by the gate but by another way, such a one is a thief and a robber,” according to the Gospel.

Besides, we should mention that from our research until now with the Supreme Court of Athens there does not exist a legal person with a registration number which the announcement of the Federation of Greek Orthodox Communities of Australia mentions.

From the Office of the Sacred Synod

Περί της εν Αυστραλία καταστάσεως

Σύμφωνα μέ πληροφορίες ἀπό τόν παροικιακό τύπο τῆς Αὐστραλίας διαπιστώνουμε την προσπάθεια προβολῆς μιᾶς ἐσφαλμένης εἰκόνας σχετικά μὲ τὴν ὑπόθεση τῆς συμφωνίας μεταξύ τῆς Ὁμοσπονδίας Ἑλληνικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κοινοτήτων Αὐστραλίας καὶ μιᾶς ὁμάδος ρασοφόρων αὐτοπαρουσιαζομένης ὡς «Ἐκκλησία Γ.Ο.Χ. Ἑλλάδος».

Ἐκ τῶν δημοσιευμάτων αὐτῶν εἶναι ξεκάθαρο ὅτι ἡ συμφωνία αὐτή εἶχε ἕναν καὶ μόνον στόχο: τὴν ἐπίτευξη τῆς ἀναγνωρίσεως τῶν μυστηρίων τῶν ἐπιτελουμένων ἀπό τήν λεγομένη «Αὐτοκέφαλο Ἐκκλησία Αὐστραλίας καὶ Ἀμερικῆς(!)», δηλαδή τόν Ἐκκλησιαστικό φορέα τόν ὁποῖο ἐδημιούργησε ἡ Ὁμοσπονδία Ἑλληνικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κοινοτήτων Αὐστραλίας. Μᾶς ἦταν πάντοτε γνωστή ἡ διαφωνία τῶν Κοινοτήτων μὲ τὴν Ἀρχιεπισκοπή Αὐστραλίας. Γνωρίζαμε κάλλιστα πῶς ἡ διαφωνία αὐτή δὲν ἦταν ποτέ γιὰ ζητήματα πίστεως. Ἀφορούσε διοιηκητικά θέματα. Οἱ Κοινότητες ποτέ δὲν ἀνέχθηκαν νὰ παραχωρήσουν στόν ἀπόλυτο ἔλεγχο τῶν Πατριαρχικῶν Ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἀρχῶν τούς ναούς πού μέ τόν ἰδρῶτα τῶν ἁπλῶν μεταναστῶν – μελῶν τους ἀνήγειραν. Τὸ θέμα κυρίως ἀφοροῦσε τόν οἰκονομικό ἔλεγχο τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν. Ὡς ἐκ τούτου ἀποσχίσθηκαν ἀπό τήν Νεοημερολογιτική Ἀρχιεπισκοπή Αὑστραλίας καί ἴδρυσαν τήν δική τους «Αὐτοκέφαλη» Ἐκκλησία.

Ἡ «Αὐτοκέφαλη» αὐτή Ἐκκλησία ἀκολουθεῖ ἐπίσης τὸ νέο ἡμερολόγιο, χρησιμοποιεῖ ὡς κληρικούς της κυρίως πρόσωπα πού προέρχονται ἀπό την Ἀρχιεπισκοπή Αὐστραλίας, ἀπό τήν ὁποία δέν διαφέρει καθόλου στίς οἰκουμενιστικές πρακτικές τῆς τελέσεως μικτῶν γάμων, τῆς ἐλλειποῦς τηρήσεως τῶν τυπικῶν τῶν ἱερῶν ἀκολουθιῶν, τῆς ἀποδοχῆς στίς τάξεις της ὡς μελῶν καί στελεχῶν μασόνων ὁμογενῶν κ.λπ.. Πλήν ὅμως, τά μυστήρια ποὺ ἐπιτελοῦνται ἀπό τούς κληρικούς τῆς Αὐτοκεφάλου Ἐκκλησίας δὲν καταχωροῦνται στά βιβλία τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν Προξενικῶν Ἀρχῶν. Τοῦτο ἀποτελοῦσε ἀνέκαθεν ἕνα μέσον πιέσεως κατά τῆς «Αὐτοκεφάλου» καὶ ἐξέφραζε τήν προτίμηση τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν Ἀρχῶν πρὸς τῆν ἄλλη νεοημερολογιτική παράταξη τῆς Αὐστραλίας, δηλαδή τῆς Ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς.

Τὸ ζήτημα τῆς καταχωρήσεως τῶν μυστηρίων τῆς Αὐτοκεφάλου Ἐκκλησίας ἀφορᾶ τίς Ἑλληνικές Ἀρχές καί θά μποροῦσε νὰ τό λύσει αὐτό μέ πολιτικά ἢ νομικά μέσα ἡ Αὐστραλιανή Αὐτοκέφαλος Ἐκκλησία. Ἡ λύση, ὅμως, τήν ὁποία προέκρινε ἡ Ὁμοσπονδία Ἑλληνικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κοινοτήτων Αὐστραλίας εἶναι παράλογη καί προσβλητική γιὰ τούς Γνησίους Ὀρθοδόξους Χριστιανούς.

Διότι τά μυστήρια τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ. καταχωροῦνται κανονικά στά ληξιαρχεῖα τῆς Ἑλλάδος καί τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν Προξενικῶν Ἀρχῶν τοῦ ἐξωτερικοῦ, ἀλλά ὄχι ἀπροϋποθέτως. Πρέπει οἱ κληρικοί οἱ ὁποῖοι τὰ ἐπιτελοῦν νὰ ἔχουν κανονικά χειροτονηθεῖ καὶ να μήν ἔχουν καθαιρεθεῖ.

Οἱ Κοινότητες προσέλαβαν ὡς Ἐπίσκοπο ἕναν πρώην νεοημερολογίτη Κληρικό τῆς Ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς Ἀθηνῶν τόν ὁποῖο «ἐχειροτόνησαν» ἄτομα μή φέροντα κανονική χειροτονία. Ὁ φερόμενος ὡς Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Αἰγίνης Αὐξέντιος, «χειροτονήθηκε» τό 1996 ἀπό τόν Μάξιμο Βαλλιανάτο καί τόν Δημήτριο Μπίφη. Ὁ πρῶτος ἦταν κάποτε Μητροπολίτης Κεφαλληνίας τῆς Ἐκκλησίας τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ., ὅμως τό 1985 καθῃρέθη λόγῳ μιᾶς παράνομης χειροτονίας τὴν ὁποία εἶχε ἐπιτελέσει, καί στή συνέχεια ἀφορίσθηκε, ὅταν ἀποδείχθηκε ὅτι ἐπιπλέον εἶχε ψευδορκήσει. Ὁ δεύτερος ἦταν νεοημερολογίτης ἱερομόναχος ὁ ὁποῖος ξαφνικά παρουσιάσθηκε ὡς ...Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κρήτης, δίχως νὰ γνωρίζει κανείς ἀπό ποῦ ἀνεφύη!

Ἡ περί τόν ἐν λόγῳ «Αἰγίνης Αὐξέντιο» ὁμάδα ἔχει ἀπειροελάχιστη ἐμβέλεια στόν Ἑλλαδικό χῶρο καί τά ἐλάχιστα «μυστήρια» τά ὁποῖα ἐπιτελοῦν οἱ ὀλιγάριθμοι «κληρικοί» τους ἄν καταχωροῦνται στά ληξιαρχεῖα (γιὰ τό ὁποῖο ἀμφιβάλουμε) τοῦτο ἀσφαλῶς θὰ ὀφείλεται στήν ἐλλειπῆ τήρηση τῶν ὑπουργικῶν ἀποφάσεων καί ἐγκυκλίων ἀπό τοὺς ληξιάρχους. Ὅπου οἱ ληξίαρχοι ἐπιτελοῦν τό καθῆκον τους αὐτά δέν καταχωροῦνται.

Ἐπιπλέον τά ὑπό τῶν Κληρικῶν τῆς «Αὐτοκεφάλου» Ἐκκλησίας στήν Αὐστραλία, τελεσθέντα μυστήρια δέν μποροῦν να καταχωρηθοῦν ὡς μυστήρια τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ., διότι ἁπλούστατα αὐτοί οἱ ὁποῖοι τὰ ἐτέλεσαν δὲν ἦταν ποτέ Κληρικοί τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ.. Ἦταν καί εἶναι πάντοτε νεοημερολογῖται. Δέν μετεβλήθησαν σέ Γ.Ο.Χ. ἀπό μία ὑπογραφή πού ἔβαλε ὁ Ἀξιότιμος Πρόεδρος τῆς Ὁμοσπονδίας Ἑλληνικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κοινοτήτων Αὐστραλίας σέ συμφωνία μέ ἕναν φερόμενο ὡς Ἀρχιεπίσκοπο Γ.Ο.Χ.. Οὔτε ἡ ἀνάθεση τῆς διοικήσεως τῆς «Αὐτοκεφάλου Ἐκκλησίας» σέ πρώην νεοημερολογίτη κληρικό πού ἔλαβε ἀνυπόστατη «χειροτονία» ἀπό φερομένους ὡς Ἐπισκόπους Γ.Ο.Χ., γιὰ νὰ μεταβῇ στὴν Αὐστραλία καί λειτουργεῖ πάλι μέ τό ὡς νεοημερολογίτης σέ νεοημερολογιτικές Ἐνορίες, μετέτρεψε τούς ἰδίους κληρικούς ξαφνικά -ὡς διὰ μαγείας- σέ κληρικούς Γ.Ο.Χ.!

Ἐπιπλέον ἡ χρησιμοποίηση πιστοποιητικῶν πού φέρουν στην προμετωπίδα «Ἐκκλησία Γ.Ο.Χ. Ἑλλάδος – Αὐτοκέφαλος Ἐκκλησία Αὐστραλίας και Ἀμερικῆς» εἶναι τουλάχιστον παράλογη: πῶς εἰναι αὐτοκέφαλη, ὅταν ὑπάγεται σέ μείζονα ἐκκλησιαστική ἀρχή; Εἶναι προφανές ὅτι ἡ χρήση τῆς ἐπωνυμίας τῶν Γ.Ο.Χ. εἶναι προκάλυμμα γιὰ τήν μέ πλάγιο τρόπο καταχώρηση τῶν μυστηρίων τῆς Αὐτοκεφάλου Ἐκκλησίας.

Ἐάν θέλουν τήν καταχώρηση τῶν μυστηρίων τους νὰ τό πράξουν προσφεύγοντες στά ἁρμόδια δικαστήρια «εἰσερχόμενοι διὰ τῆς θύρας» ἀναγνωριζόμενοι ὡς αὐτοί πού εἶναι πραγματικά καὶ ὄχι μεταχειριζόμενοι μία ἐπωνυμία πού δέν τούς ἀνήκει. Διότι «ὁ μή εἰσερχόμενος διά τῆς θύρας (...), ἀλλά ἀναβαίνων ἀλλαχόθεν, ἐκεῖνος κλέπτης ἐστί καί ληστής» κατὰ τὸ Ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον.

Ἐπιπροσθέτως, ὀφείλουμε νὰ ἀναφέρουμε, ὅτι ἀπό τὴν μέχρι τώρα ἔρευνά μας στὸ Πρωτοδικεῖο Ἀθηνῶν, δέν ὑφίσταται νομικό πρόσωπο μέ ἀριθμό μητρώου αὐτόν που ἀναφέρει ἡ ἀνακοίνωση τῆς Ὁμοσπονδίας Ἑλληνικῶν Ὀρθοδόξων Κοινοτήτων Αὐστραλίας.

Ἐκ τῆς Γραμματείας τῆς Ἱερᾶς Συνόδου

Met. Vitaly on the Anathema against Ecumenism

. 

The ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism (1983)

. 

by Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal and Canada

The Council of Bishops of 1983 was a most special council, whose distinctiveness lay in its modesty and inconspicuousness. This was, of course, the first time in the history of our Church that a council had been held at Holy Transfiguration Skete—not even in a monastery. The fourteen hierarchs who took part in the Council traveled from all parts of the free world—at their head the First Hierarch of our Church, His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret. Ten of them were elderly men over seventy years old. In addition, no previous council had been so brief, continuing in all for just under two weeks. The skete, in which all the sessions were held, is situated in a very beautiful locale, far from heavily-traveled roads and surrounded on all sides by coniferous and deciduous forests: one might even describe its location as overgrown [...]

Of course, neither the international nor the local press made a single mention of our very insignificant council, which only further emphasizes its modesty. Indeed, none of these members of the press had time for us when at the other end of Canada, 4,800 kilometers from Mansonville (Quebec), a world-wide ecumenical council was being held. All religions were represented there: Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants of every sort, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, and even simple shamans (or to put it more directly and simply: sorcerers). If one adds to this motley collection women priests and the presence among the participants of bare-footed dancers in the style of Eleanora Duncan then one simply cannot find words fit to describe the character of this great world-wide assembly.

It has been almost a hundred years now since ecumenism began its attack upon the one true Church of Christ, invested by Him with the authority to bind and to loose, and began to unite all the countless heresies, both small and great, acknowledging them to be, as it were, sparks of the truth, from which the future ecumenical church is to be formed in place of the historical Church of Christ, which in their opinion has proved to be a failure. Against this monstrous teaching a vast literature has grown up, revealing ecumenism to be the heresy of heresies, but we cannot in such a short article review it in detail. Without doubt, the time for discussion and polemics has passed and the time has come to judge this movement and, however insignificant our Council of 1983 may seem, it has at last condemned ecumenism and anathematized it in the following words:

• 
  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!

The Russian Church Abroad, now headed by Metropolitan Philaret, professes itself to be an inseparable part of the historic Russian Church. As a local Church it has the right to summon its regular Councils and to enforce its resolutions, which are thereupon fully obligatory for all of its children, scattered throughout the world. Time will tell whether or not the other local Churches will adopt our resolution on ecumenism as the acts of the Ten Local Councils were, in their time, entered into the Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical Councils, and the Holy Fathers of the Universal Church. We well know that all our conciliar resolutions against the Moscow Patriarchate, whose hierarchy is completely subject to the atheist Communist Party, were merely taken note of by the other local Churches—to their spiritual detriment. The local Orthodox Churches tried to justify themselves by saying that their silence was due to the difficulty of discerning all the internal affairs of Russia and that our resolutions against the Soviet Moscow Patriarchate were more political than ecclesiastical, although it is now clear to all reasonable persons that the doctrine of Communism is atheistic and materialistic. Russia is not Nicaragua, and when such a great people, occupying one sixth of the earth suffers, the whole world suffers. The disease of Communism has now penetrated every nation and to say that anyone cannot understand the internal affairs of Russia would be, to put it mildly, amusing if they had not had such a tragic influence on all the Orthodox Churches and peoples. In regard to ecumenism, every local Church has had ample time, more than a century, to spend examining it and, if the local Churches base their teachings and life upon the canons of the Holy Apostles and the other Orthodox Councils, then they cannot but recognize that ecumenism is clearly the most pernicious of heresies, for it has gathered all the heresies that exist or have existed and has called this union a Church—a deed that savors of Antichrist.

By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale. The place of the Russian Church Abroad is now plain in the conscience of all the Orthodox. The Lord has laid a great cross upon us, but it is, however, no longer possible to remain silent; for continued silence would be like a betrayal of the Truth, from which may the Lord deliver us all!

Arch. Averky, on the term "True Orthodox"

 .

. 

ARE THE TERMS "CHRISTIAN" AND "ORTHODOX" ACCURATE IN OUR TIMES?

 .

 .

 .

by Archbishop Averky (Taushev)

 .

Until recently, the concepts and terms "Christian" and "Orthodox" were unambiguous and meaningful. Now, however, we are living through times so terrible, so filled with falsehood and deception, that such concepts and terms no longer convey what is significant when used without further clarification. They do not reflect the essence of things, but have become little more than deceptive labels.

Many societies and organizations now call themselves "Christian," although there is nothing Christian in them, insofar as they reject the principal dogma of Christianity—the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as do several of the newest sects, to which the very spirit of true Christianity, which follows so naturally and logically from the teaching of the Gospels, is generally quite foreign.

Of late, the term "Orthodox" also has ceased in large measure to express what it should, for even those who in fact have apostatized from true Orthodoxy and become traitors to the Orthodox Faith and Church continue to call themselves "Orthodox."

Such are all the innovators, who reject the true spirit of Orthodoxy, all those who have started down the path of mutual relations with the enemies of Orthodoxy, who propagandize for common prayer and even liturgical communion with those who do not belong to the Holy Orthodox Church. 

Such are the "renovationists"1 and contemporary "neo-renovationists," the "neo-Orthodox" (as some of them openly style themselves!), who are clamoring about how essential it is to "renew the Orthodox Church," about some sort of "reforms in Orthodoxy," which allegedly has become "set in its ways" and "moribund." They harp on such things instead of focusing their prayerful attention on the truly essential renewal of their own souls and the fundamental reform of their own sinful nature with its passions and desires. They insistently proclaim union with heretics, with non-Orthodox, and even with non-Christians. They proclaim "the union of all," but without the unity of spirit and truth which alone makes such union possible. 

Such, for example, in our days are the Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople, who in the past recognized the "Living Church" in Soviet Russia as legal and now recognize the Pope of Rome as the "head of the whole Christian Church," and even admit the papist Latins to Holy Communion without their first being united to the Holy Orthodox Church. 

Such are all those who actively participate in the so-called Ecumenical Movement, which is striving so blatantly to create some sort of new pseudo-church out of all the denominations now existing. 

Such, too, are those many others who are not completely faithful to our Lord and Saviour and His Holy Church, but serve His vicious enemies or please them in one way or another by helping them to realize their anti-Christian goals in a world which has turned away from God. Who will dare to deny us our lawful right not to recognize such people as Orthodox, even though they may persist in using that name and in bearing various high ranks and titles? From church history we know that there have been not a few heretics and even heresiarchs of high rank who were solemnly condemned by the Universal Church and removed from their offices.

But what do we see today? This, sadly, is an age of unlimited concessions and sly collaboration, when even the most scandalous heretical actions or statements disturb hardly anyone. Very few react to this manifest apostasy from Orthodoxy as they should, and as for condemning these new heretics and apostates—there is no point in even thinking about it. Today everything is permitted for everyone and nothing is prohibited for anyone, except in cases where someone is personally hurt, offended and insulted when their own folly is pointed out. Oh, in such cases, this is unforgivable! Then threats make their appearance, based on those forgotten canons, which otherwise are "obsolete, outdated and unacceptable" in our advanced, progressive age!

The truth is readily ignored and brazenly flouted, while evil, just as readily, celebrates its triumphant victory and gloatingly mocks the truth which it has overthrown and trampled upon. Is it possible to reconcile one's conscience to this contemporary situation? Can one close one's eyes to all these lies and falsehoods and calmly act as if one saw nothing wrong? Only individuals whose consciences are burned out or completely lost can do so! That is why it is more than strange to hear some, imagining themselves to be Orthodox, call the Russian Church Outside of Russia, "Old Believer," "schismatic," "Black Hundredist, "2" retrograde," "obscurantist," and so on, simply because we will not walk in step with these times and dare not to apostatize in anything from Christ's Gospel and the original teaching of the Holy Church, and therefore consider it an obligation of conscience to condemn this clear and obvious evil of contemporary life which has already penetrated into the Church.

In fact, it is not we who are schismatic, but all those who follow the spirit of these times and by that act cut themselves off from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, apostatizing from the apostolic faith, from the faith of the Fathers, from the Orthodox faith, which established the whole world… These people are obviously hurtling over the precipice of apostasy—into the abyss of perdition, together with the whole contemporary world, burying themselves in their apostasy from the life-creating God.

Do you hear the Apostle's divinely inspired words, modernists, attempting to distort Christ's Gospel and becoming so readily and zealously "conformed to this world," evil and alluring as it is?

We readily accept your indictment that we are "old believers," considering it an honor to our traditionalism; but how does your Christian conscience get on with your innovating, which overthrows essentially the ancient, true faith and Christ's unchanging Church?

Was it not the Apostle who warned all Christians: "Be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God" (Romans 12:2).

We are "old believers," but not schismatics, for we have never cut ourselves off from the true Church of Christ.

We are in union with our Head, Christ the Saviour, with His holy Disciples and Apostles, with the Apostolic Fathers, with the great Fathers and Teachers of the Church, and with the great luminaries and pillars of the faith and piety of our Fatherland, Holy Russia. But you are in union with some sort of innovating, self-appointed teachers, whom you advertise everywhere so unlawfully and obstinately, disparaging and at times even daring to criticize the genuine luminaries of our Holy Church, who have pleased God and been glorified in many ascetic struggles of piety and miracles throughout the course of her two-thousand year history.

This being the case, which of us is really the schismatic? Of course it is not those in the spirit of traditional Orthodoxy, but those who have apostatized from the true faith of Christ and rejected the genuine spirit of Christian piety; even though all the contemporary patriarchs, who have altered our age-old, patristic Orthodoxy, may be on the latter's side, as well as the majority of contemporary, so-called Christians.

Indeed, Christ the Saviour did not promise eternal salvation to the majority, but quite the contrary, He promised it to His "little flock," which will remain faithful to Him to the end, in the day of His Glorious and Terrible Second Coming, when He will come "to judge the living and the dead."

"Fear not, little flock," He said, painting the frightening picture of the last times of apostasy from God and persecution of the Faith before our mind's eye, "For it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" (St. Luke 12:32).

This is why all we have said above prompts us to re-examine the terminology that has been accepted up to the present. It is insufficient in our time to say only "Christian"—now it is necessary to qualify this by saying "true-Christian." Similarly it is insufficient to say "Orthodox"—it is essential to emphasize that one is not referring to an innovating modernist "Orthodox," but to a true Orthodox.

All genuine zealots of the true faith, serving Christ the Saviour alone, have already begun to do this, both those in our Fatherland, enslaved by ferocious enemies of God, where zealots depart into the catacombs like the ancient Christians, as well as in Greece, our brother nation, where the "Old Calendarists" not only refuse to accept the new calendar, but also reject all innovations of any kind. They have a special veneration for that champion of Holy Orthodoxy, St. Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, thanks to whose steadfastness the impious Union of Florence with papal Rome in 1439 failed.3

In our firm stand for the true Faith and Church it is essential to avoid everything personal—pride and self-exaltation, which inevitably lead to new errors, and eventually even to a fall; we have already witnessed this in several cases. It is not ourselves we should praise, but the pure and immaculate Faith of Christ. No fanaticism is admissible here because it is capable of blinding the spiritual eyes of such who are "zealous not according to knowledge." Rather than confirming one in the Faith, this blind fanaticism can sometimes lead one away from it.

It is important to know and to remember that a true Orthodox Christian is not someone who just accepts the dogmas of Orthodoxy formally, but a person who, as our great Russian hierarch St. Tikhon of Zadonsk taught so beautifully, thinks in an Orthodox way, feels in an Orthodox way, and lives in an Orthodox way, incarnating the spirit of Orthodoxy in his life. This spirit-ascetic and world-renouncing, as is clearly set forth in the Word of God and the teachings of the Holy Fathers—is most sharply and boldly denied by the modernists, the "neo-Orthodox," who want in everything to keep in step with the spirit of this world lying in evil, whose prince, in the words of the Lord Himself, is none other than the devil (St. John 12:31). Thus it is not God Whom they desire to please, but the "prince of this world," the devil; and thereby they cease to be true Orthodox Christians, even if they call themselves such.

If we consider all this more seriously and deeply, then we will see that this is precisely the case and that modernism with its innovations is leading us away from Christ and His true Church.

Let us be horrified at how rapidly apostasy has proceeded, although the modernists do not see it or feel it, inasmuch as they themselves are taking an active part in it.

And so let us not fear to remain in the minority—far from all their high-sounding titles and ranks. Let us always remember that even Caiaphas was a high priest of the true God, and to what depths he sank—to the horrible sin of deicide!

While living in this world which has apostatized from God, let us strive not for specious human glory and cheap popularity, which will not save us, but only to be within Christ's "little flock."

Let us be True Orthodox Christians, not modernists!

________________________________ 

1 The name of members of the "Living Church" movement, sponsored by the Bolsheviks in the 1920's (Trans.).

2 Literally, "black hundreders:" the "black hundreds" were a patriotic, anti-revolutionary organization in pre-revolutionary Russia. Popular slander equates them with the irresponsible mobs that carried out pogroms. In fact the black hundreds were Church sponsored and opposed to any sort of brutality.

3 It is noteworthy that both the Catacomb Church in the USSR ("Tikhonites") and the Greek Old Calendarists, between whom there can hardly be any communication, have begun to call themselves "True Orthodox Christians."

 .

 .

. 

Reprinted from Orthodox Life, St. Job of Pochaev Press, Holy Trinity Monastery,

Jordanville, New York., Vol. 25, No. 3, May-June, 1975., pp. 4-8.

Fr. Steven Allen: ROCOR, Met. Agathangel & SiR

The Demise of ROCOR, the Synod of Metropolitan Agathangel, and the Ecclesiology of the Cyprianite “Synod in Resistance”

Introduction 

The synod commonly styled “ROCOR-A”, that is, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia under the presidency of Metropolitan Agathangel of Odessa, claims that its hierarchy is the only canonical successor to the hierarchy of the ROCOR as it existed prior to the submission of all the ROCOR bishops, excepting the then-Bishop Agathangel, to the Moscow Patriarchate in 2007. This claim rests on three assertions:

Assertion 1. Agathangel of Odessa was the only anti-MP bishop who remained a loyal and obedient member of the Laurus synod until the bitter end of ROCOR as we knew it.

He broke with them at the last minute because being absorbed into the Moscow Patriarchate was simply too much to swallow, unlike several of the ROCOR's prior anti-Orthodox and uncanonical acts, which, though distasteful – or perhaps not - were still within the realm of palatability for Bishop Agathangel. On the basis of this distinction, he claims the mantle of succession. He was the only man left standing after the fight, so to speak, since the bishops of ROCOR who had providentially escaped the control of the fatally infiltrated New York synod before 2007 – such as Valentin of Suzdal, Metropolitan Vitaly, Lazarus (Zhurbenko), et al – and were subsequently declared schismatic, defrocked, etc., by that same New York synod already controlled by the pro-Soviet party, truly were, according to the obedient Bishop Agathangel, schismatic and defrocked.

Thus we have, according to the Agathangelite position, three sets of ROCOR bishops or former bishops as of May 2007:
 

    a. False bishops who perform invalid mysteries within the false churches of ROAC, RTOC, ROCiE, etc.

    b. True bishops who perform valid Mysteries within the true Church of the MP: Abp Mark, Abp Laurus, & Co.

    c. One true bishop who did not elect to join his beloved brother true bishops in their tragically imprudent submission to the true and grace-bearing Church of the MP: Bishop Agathangel.


Assertion 2. Unlike their rivals, Metropolitan Agathangel and his synod loyally and obediently accept all of the decisions and acts of the ROCOR synod prior to their unfortunate decision to be swallowed by the Moscow Patriarchate.

This includes the 1994 decision to proclaim the theory of Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili regarding the status of “uncondemned heretics” as the anciently accepted teaching of the Orthodox Church, and to enter communion with the “Synod in Resistance” under Met. Cyprian (and thereby definitively destroy the possibility of communion with the Synod of the Genuine Orthodox Christians) precisely on the basis of embracing this theory.

Assertion 3. Metropolitan Agathangel logically, then, sought out his brother “moderate” bishops of the Synod in Resistance to consecrate other bishops for the ROCOR-A.

This act finally and ontologically anointed his group's status as the “real ROCOR,” since, as is well known, the “real ROCOR” was Cyprianite in its ecclesiology and its ecclesiastical alliances.

How should we in the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians regard the claims of the Agathangelites? Let us begin by examining the ecclesiological position of the ROCOR prior to 1994, and then from 1994 to 2007.


Part I : Historical Summary

A. The ROCOR's Ecclesiological Position vis a vis “World” Orthodoxy Prior to 1994

From the start, one needs to recognize that the ROCOR never formally broke communion with any jurisdiction of World Orthodoxy except the Moscow Patriarchate, the Evlogian Parisian schism, and the North American Metropolia/OCA schism, i.e., the other Russian groups.

Many in the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, used to decades of detailed, agonizing, and careful articulations of, and impassioned arguments about, ecclesiology, find it hard to realize that for most of its history, most of ROCOR's bishops and clergy did not think carefully about such questions, except perhaps in regard to the Moscow Patriarchate and the other Russian groups. There were outstanding individuals in the ROCOR, such as the Holy Confessor Metropolitan Philaret, who saw clearly how ROCOR should deal with the apostasy of global “World Orthodoxy,” but most of the ROCOR bishops and clergy simply had an instinctive (albeit healthy) distaste for modernism and ecumenism that never led them further - to undertake the process of rational discussion necessary to make clear decisions about these problems.

The ROCOR's official policies regarding concelebration with jurisdictions other then those mentioned above, were never consistent, and the policy as it developed in the 1960's and onward, of mostly not concelebrating, was unwritten and de facto, not de jure. The ROCOR synod allowed the diocesan bishops almost complete discretion in this matter, and therefore the practice varied from one diocese to another. The most obvious contrast was between the North American dioceses, which were generally strict, and the European diocese, most of whose clergy, following the lead of their “abba,” Abp. Anthony of Geneva, always saw themselves as part of “World” Orthodoxy and were willing to concelebrate with anyone other than the Soviets and the Evlogians, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Thus ROCOR had completely pro-World Orthodox bishops and clergy who denied that the ecumenism of “World” Orthodoxy was an impediement to concelebration and naturally objected loudly to anathematizing the ecumenists. But ROCOR as a body never stated this group's position as being the position of the ROCOR – they acted as individuals, or at most, as individual dioceses, until 2007, when their position became the official ROCOR-MP line.

ROCOR also had a large “mainstream” of bishops and clergy of who did not want to pray with the ecumenists but recoiled sentimentally from saying that they were really outside the Church. Until 1994, however, the ROCOR never explicitly subscribed to the full-blown, cataphatic Cyprianite position, that it is de fide that “uncondemned heretics” are guaranteed to remain in the Church and that to believe otherwise is un-Orthodox.

There was also, in the midst of all this confusion, a small but distinguished group of ROCOR bishops and clergy who held and clearly articulated the Orthodox position – that notorious, unrepentant heretical bishops are to be regarded as pseudo-bishops even prior to a conciliar judgment - but they taught this only as individuals, or, at most, at the diocesan level. During the long reign of Metropolitan Philaret, this “strict” party gained the upper hand in forming the mindset and projecting the public image of the ROCOR, and it was due to their influence that the de facto policy of non-concelebration spread organically through most of the ROCOR's dioceses. Their position, however - that the ecumenists were simply, obviously heretics and outside the Church - was never formally adopted by the ROCOR synod. During the sad, twilight reign of Metropolitan Vitaly, who never seemed to be able to make up his mind whose side he was on, this party completely lost their grip on the direction of their Church.

The one synodal act of ROCOR which came close to stating a clear position was the Anathema of 1983, but its use as a canonical basis for formally breaking communion with the World Orthodox hierarchies was publicly rejected by the 1986 Nativity Encyclical of Met. Vitaly, which clearly states that the Anathema applies to no one, a position which the other members of his synod did not dispute. From that point on, the Anathema was a dead letter; there were cathedrals where the ruling bishops disdained even to proclaim it pro forma on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. The 1994 decision regarding Cyprianism finally destroyed any remaining possibility that the ROCOR would formally assert that a local council could anathematize heretics, much less that a heretic is outside the Church even prior to a conciliar judgment.

The “mainstream old ROCOR” attitude to examining the canonical tradition and employing its criteria for breaking communion with heretics was encapsulated perfectly by a brief reply I elucidated from Bishop Kyrill of Seattle, the present ROCOR-MP Archbishop of San Francisco, while speaking with him in his quarters above the Church of the Resurrection on 6th Avenue in San Francisco, in December of 1999:

Fr. Steven: “Vladika, our bishops simply must ascertain the canonical criteria for remaining in communion or breaking communion with other hierarchies, and then formally act on them in regards to 'World Orthodoxy.' This is a matter of our spiritual survival.”

Bishop Kyrill: “Fr. Steven, I don't know about such things and I don't want to know about such things.”

That about says it all.

What held ROCOR together, humanly speaking, then, was not a clearly articulated ecclesiology, but rather Russian patriotism, the anti-communism of the Cold War era, and an instinctively conservative piety. Its bishops were responsible for governing a large, world-wide diaspora whose churchmen fell everywhere on the spectrum of opinion regarding most church matters, and the Council of Bishops always preferred compromise or avoidance to clarity with its concomitant: confrontation. As a body, despite its noble history and outstanding examples of piety and pastoral love of many pious bishops and clergy, the ROCOR never dealt realistically or effectively with the growing apostasy of ecumenism. In the end, its lack of a clear and defensible position left it an unguarded city open to its enemies, and it was destroyed.

When Met. Agathangel and his spokesmen, then, claim to carry on the “traditional ROCOR attitude” regarding ecclesiology, this is difficult to deny or confirm, since there was no identifiable “traditional ROCOR ecclesiology,” just a cacophony of conflicting sentiments roughly expressed by inchoate opinions drowning out the “still, small voice” of ecclesiological truth articulated by an increasingly powerless minority

An artificial and alien creation, however – the Cyprianite theory – was imported late in the day as a weapon with which the pro-MP party planned to give a mortal stroke in their long, systematic, death struggle against the freedom and orthodoxy of the ROCOR.


B. The 1994 Union with the “Synod in Resistance”

The agents of the Russian government and its subsidiary, the Moscow Patriarchate, who were orchestrating the campaign to crush ROCOR beneath the feet of the MP with steadily increasing success throughout the 1990's, knew that they could not get the ROCOR rank and file suddenly to acknowledge this atheist-created criminal organization as a real Church, much less the “Mother Church.” Everyone knew that the ROCOR pre-dated the Moscow Patriarchate in its present form, and that such an obviously bogus organization as the MP could not possibly constitute the canonical hierarchy of the actual Russian Orthodox Church. The ROCOR mainstream may not have known what they felt about anyone else, but they knew what they felt about the MP: it was not the Church. Moreover, the ROCOR right wing not only felt it, they understood it clearly and could explain it.

Archbishop Mark and Archbishop Laurus, the hierarchical front men for the KGB operation to destroy the ROCOR, found in the ecclesiological theory of Met. Cyprian an ideal Trojan Horse to carry the acknowledgement of the MP as the CHURCH even into the bastion of right wing ROCOR opinion. Over the objections of Met. Vitaly and Abp. Antony of Los Angeles, as well as those of the retired Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), the ROCOR Council of Bishops (Sobor) proclaimed in July of 1994 that the ecclesiological teaching of Met. Cyprian was precisely that also of the Russian Church Abroad. Explicitly on the basis of this shared ecclesiology, the ROCOR and the “Synod in Resistance” established canonical communion.

The pro-MP forces lost no time in fanning the miasma of this “moderate ecclesiology” through the ranks of the ROCOR right wing, to fuddle their minds and weaken their moral will to fight back. Suddenly one was hearing all the time, from all quarters, that the MP was the “Mother Church” and that it “undoubtedly had grace,” that to deny the grace of this holy “Mother Church” was “blasphemous,” and so forth. Many of those who became closest personally to the Cyprianites were from among the conservatives in the ROCOR, because historically it was the conservatives who had always been sympathetic to the Greek Old Calendarists by temperament and outlook. This was, perhaps, one of the developments which the agent-architects of the 1994 union had foreseen. Now even erstwhile right wingers were heard to be saying that the MP was a Church and that its Mysteries were therefore “grace-filled.”

The next step was to go from “they have grace and they are a Church” to “therefore we must not remain separate from them.” The intellectual acrobatics of the labyrinthine Cyprianite dialectic lie a bit outside the ordinary person's capacity for subtlety – a fact that, far from denying, the savants of Cyprianism frequently point out to us, their intellectual inferiors. A trained, fully initiated Resister – normally equipped with a PhD – understands why he steadfastly refuses to receive what he steadfastly believes to be genuine Holy Mysteries from men he steadfastly regards as real bishops and priests, but such a peculiar gnosis is rather difficult to maintain for the ordinary sort of mind. In the 1990's, the erudite mystagogues of this rarefied understanding were too few to initiate fully the rank and file of the ROCOR, and therefore many of the latter, being but mere mortals, and having accepted that “the MP is our Mother Church,” rather easily took the next mental step: “It is inevitable that we must join them.”

At this point, Troy was burning. With a critical mass of the former right wing of ROCOR captivated by this thought, frogs hypnotized by the snake, the task of Moscow's loyal servants in the ROCOR hierarchy became quite easy. The “union” with the Bolshevik “church” had quietly become a foregone conclusion.

When Met. Agathangel and his followers, therefore, point to their acceptance of the Cyprianite ecclesiology as one of their bona fides, one cannot help but be struck with sadness. A dagger plunged into the heart of their beloved Church still appears to them, rather, as a standard of the Faith.


Part II : Quo Vadis, Agathangele?  

When Met. Agathangel and his followers were casting about for a solution to their problem of having only one bishop, they did not immediately decide on the Synod in Resistance. A committee of Agathangelite clergy heard out a delegation from the GOC-Kiousis synod at a meeting in Astoria, New York, regarding the history and ideology of the Resisters. As one of the GOC delegates later informed me, however, they did not seem terribly interested, but rather spent most of the session passing a flask of spirits among themselves and making funny remarks. This is entirely in character with the “traditional mainstream of the old ROCOR,” where it was de rigeur to pooh-pooh scrupulosity over canonical and dogmatic matters as betraying an unspiritual, even Roman Catholic, mindset, and where a rather charming foolishness for Christ's sake often flowed from the vodka bottle. Hearing this story made me smile fondly, recalling happy days of yore and childlike companions I knew and loved. It also conveyed to me that, as usual, the “mainstream of ROCOR” did not know about such things and did not want to know about such things.

So, as we all know by now, the ROCOR-A ended up going to the Resisters for their episcopal consecrations. This is their third assertion and, as it were, resounding coda in the argument that they are THE continuation of ROCOR: their apostolic succession now depends completely upon the legitimacy of a synod recognized - chiefly through the good offices of our friend Archbishop Mark - as the ROCOR's sister Church in 1994.

When defending their choice of ecclesiastical allies, sometimes Agathangelites who have the sense to be a little nervous about the Cyprianite teaching pass it off as a “private opinion of Met. Cyprian which has no normative status.” This, however, is not true. The ecclesiology of the Cyprianites is not simply a private opinion of the elder Met. Cyprian. It is a formal and oft-promulgated position of their synod, and it is their formal and only justification for being separate from the legitimate authority of the genuine Greek Church, that is, the Synod under Abp Chrysostomos. They do not deny this. The entire legitimacy of the existence of the Cyprianite group is based on this ecclesiology's being not only a permissible theologoumenon, but actually an article of faith so anciently accepted, so universally acknowledged, so clear, that it justified the elder Cyprian's refusal, on the basis of Apostolic Canon 34 and the 15th Canon of the 1st and 2nd Council, to re-unite with the other Florinite bishops in the early 1980's.

The contrary, however, is painfully obvious: The Cyprianite position - that notorious heretics are guaranteed to remain within the Church until being expelled by an ecumenical council of such a strict and peculiar construction that it is rather difficult to demonstrate that any such council has ever taken place in the history of the Church - far from being the teaching of the Church, is an idiosyncratic and tortuous, albeit clever, argument crafted after the fact in order to justify a schism. Its learned defenders assiduously employ the most erudite and courtly language, ingeniously invoke various Fathers, astound their interlocutors by flights of dialectical genius, and invariably print their opinions on very fine stationery, but the teaching itself remains – alas – untrue.

These are not matters of only secondary importance to the ROCOR-A, because the synod whose very existence is justified solely by the claim that this theory is an accepted dogma of the catholic Church, is precisely that synod which provided the canonically required co-consecrators for the ROCOR-A bishops. If the teaching of Met. Cyprian is not really a dogma of the Church, then the Cyprianites really are schismatics, and, if so, what does that mean for the apostolic succession of the Agathangel synod?

The leaders of ROCOR-A, when they decide to become serious about the Faith instead of dreaming nostalgically about the glories of “old ROCOR,” the “White Idea,” and so forth, will need to re-examine the 1994 decision, subject it seriously to an honest critique, and go where the truth leads. Being the “genuine heir of the old ROCOR” in one's ecclesiological understanding is actually not a good thing. The indifference of the “mainstream of old ROCOR” to ecclesiology enabled the KGB to destroy them.


Priest Steven Allen
Church of St. Spyridon
Detroit, Michigan USA

24 June 2010 OS
Nativity of the Holy Forerunner

* download the article here 

.

. 

Το αίμα της Μάνδρας

Ως γνωστόν, η Αγία και Μαρτυρική Εκκλησία των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών είναι η κατ' ευθείαν και μόνη κληρονόμος της Μιάς, Αγίας, Καθολικής και Αποστολικής Εκκλησίας που ιδρύθηκε κατά την ημέρα της Αγίας Πεντηκοστής. Και τούτο, διότι μόνο Αυτή διεφύλαξε και διαφυλάττει προσεκτικά την Ορθόδοξον Χριστιανική Πίστην και ζωήν αναλλοίωτον, όπως οι Άγιοι Απόστολοι την παρέδωσαν εις τους Αγίους και Θεοφόρους Πατέρας της Εκκλησίας μας.

Διαφυλάττουσα όμως την Αγίαν Πίστην η Εκκλησία μας, εδοκιμάσθη "ως χρυσός εν χωνευτηρίω" (Σοφ. Σολομ. γ'6) και εθριάμβευσε εν μέσω διωγμών, αιμάτων και θυσιών, ακολουθούσα τα αιματόβρεκτα αχνάρια της Εκκλησίας των πρώτων αιώνων.

Επολεμήθη επί 60κοντα και πλέον χρόνια και εξακολουθεί ακόμη και σήμερα να πολεμάται σκληρά. Είναι βέβαιον ότι και εις το μέλλον δεν θα σταματήσουν οι δοκιμασίες αυτής. Ο Δικαιοκρίτης Θεός όμως, "εύρεν την Εκκλησίαν μας αξίαν" χάριν της υπομονής και της καρτερικότητας των Κληρικών και Πιστών της.

Μένει η Εκκλησία μας και θα παραμένει το απόρθητο Φρούριο όσο και αν θα επιστρατεύεται η σατανική εφευρετικότης των σκοτεινών δυνάμεων για την εκπόρθησή του. Στηρίζει ακλόνητα και διαφυλάττει την αλήθεια της Ορθοδόξου Πίστεως χωρίς να κάμπτεται από θλίψεις, ταλαιπωρίες, συκοφαντίες, διωγμούς και μαρτύρια.

Απευθύνει αγωνιστικά σαλπίσματα προς τους Ορθοδόξους Xριστιανούς κάθε εποχής, ηλικίας 

και φύλου όπως:

"Γίνου πιστός άχρι θανάτου" (Αποκάλ. β'10),

"Έως θανάτου αγώνισαι περί της αληθείας" (Σειράχ δ'28)

"Αγωνίζου τον καλόν αγώνα της πίστεως" (Α' Τιμόθ. στ'12).

Και είναι αλήθεια ότι πάντοτε ευρίσκονται ψυχές που ανταποκρίνονται σ' αυτά και θυσιάζονται για την πίστη, ψυχές που ο ζήλος τους μένει πύρινος μέχρι τέλους της ζωής τους.

Και η ανταμοιβή τους πάντοτε υπερτέρα της προσφοράς τους: "τους δοξάζοντάς με δοξάσω" (Βασιλ. β'30). Η επουράνιος αντιμισθία του Πατρός "ο της δικαιοσύνης

στέφανος".

"Τα πάτρια", εκπληρούντα, συν Θεώ, την προσπάθειαν που ανέλαβαν, παρουσιάζουν τα αιματηρά γεγονότα της Μάνδρας Αττικής, ως δείγμα των δεινών της καταδιωγμένης Εκκλησίας των Γ.Ο.Χ. Με ιδιαιτέρα μάλιστα συγκίνηση σπεύδουν να πληροφορήσουν τους αναγνώστες τους ότι, αποτέλεσμα των αιματηρών σκηνών ήταν, αφ' ενός μεν ο δια μία ακόμα φορά θρίαμβος της Ορθοδόξου ημών Πίστεως και αφ' ετέρου δε, η ανάδειξη μιας Μορφής πλημμυρισμένης από την φωτιά της Πίστεως και της αγάπης προς τον Χριστό, μιας νέας μάρτυρος, της Αικατερίνας (Ρούττη).

"Τα Πάτρια", όπως άλλοστε και η Εκκλησία διακηρύττει, φρονούν, ότι η συγκατεριθμήθη εις τον χορόν των Αγίων Μαρτύρων. Η 15η Νοεμβρίου, ημέρα της τελειώσεώς της, είναι η Γεννέθλιος Ημέρα της Νεομάρτυρος ΑΙΚΑΤΕΡΙΝΑΣ".

Τέλος, κάμνομεν έκκλησιν εις τους αγαπητούς αναγνώστας των "Πατρίων", και ιδιαίτερα τους Πιστούς της Ελληνικής Εκκλησίας των Γ.Ο.Χ., όπως διαδόσουν την παρούσα έκδοση για να γνωσθή στο ευρύτερο κοινό των Χριστιανών το μαρτύριο της Νεομάρτυρος Αικατερίνας (Ρούττη) και ότι εις τους εσχάτους καιρούς, και δη τον 20ό αιώνα, υπάρχουν ψυχές που θυσιάζονται για την αγάπη του Χριστού και του πλησίον.

Όπως και οι προηγούμενες εκδόσεις των "Πατρίων" έτυχαν ενθουσιώδους υποδοχής εκ μέρους των πιστών, το αυτό θα συμβεί, ως πιστεύομεν, και με την παρούσαν έκδοσιν.

Πειραιεύς, Ιανουάριος 1987.

Ο εν Επισκόποις ελάχιστος προς Κύριον ευχέτης

+ Ο Πενταπόλεως Καλλιόπιος Μητροπολίτης.

ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΤΗΣ ΜΑΝΔΡΑΣ

Μάνδρα Αττικής. Τόπος που συνδέθηκε με ηρωϊκά αλλά και τραγικά γεγονότα. Τόπος που πρόσφερε στην υλιστική εποχή μας μία ακόμα ηρωϊδα της Πίστεώς μας, την νεαρά νεομάρτυρα Αικατερίνη Κων. Ρούττη. Είναι γνωστό σε όλους τους Χριστιανούς ότι ποτάμια ολόκληρα αίματος εχύθησαν δια να στερεωθεί η αληθινή πίστη στον Χριστό. Αλλά και δια την διατήρησή της μακριά από την επίδραση αιρετικών νεωτερισμών πάλι εχρειάσθη να χυθεί μαρτυρικό αίμα.

Ελάτε τώρα Χριστιανοί, σεις που υπομονετικά φέρετε την περιφρόνηση των πολλών και που ακούετε στο όνομα Παλαιοημερολογίτες, ελάτε όλοι μαζί να γνωρίσουμε πως οι πατέρες και οι αδελφοί μας, που έζησαν τα πρώτα χρόνια του σχίσματος, αγωνίσθησαν και εδόξασαν την Εκκλησίαν των Γ.Ο.Χ. δίνοντας σε μας την δυνατότητα, ελεύθερα και τιμημένα να ζούμε και να λατρεύουμε τον Θεό μας.

Ας παρακολουθήσουμε λοιπόν πως εξελίχθηκαν τα θλιβερά γεγονότα της Μάνδρας, πως δηλαδή άρχισε και τι τραγικό τέλος έλαβε η ολονύκτιος πανηγυρική ακολουθία που έγινε προς τιμή των Αγίων Ταξιαρχών, τα ξημερώματα της 8ης Νοεμβρίου του 1927, εις τον ομώνυμο Ναό της Μάνδρας.

Από την παραμονή της εορτής, ευλαβείς γυναίκες της Μάνδρας, μαζί και η θαρετή υπερασπίστρια των Πατρίων Παραδόσεων Αικατερίνη (Ρούττη), ευπρέπισαν τον Ναό, ώστε το πανηγύρι τους που με τόση λαχτάρα περίμεναν να μην υστερήσει σε τίποτα. Εγκαίρως είχαν ενεργήσει και για ομόδοξο Ιερέα. Ησαν βλέπετε ελάχιστοι οι Ιερουργοί τότε και συνεπώς περιζήτητοι...

Προς τον σκοπό αυτό, μια επιτροπή είχε ξεκινήσει για την Αθήνα και να που νωρίς την παραμονή επιστρέφει με σούστα, συνοδεύοντας τον αείμνηστο ομολογητή Ιερέα π. Χριστόφορο Ψαλλίδα. Η υποδοχή που έγινε στον ερχόμενο ιερουργό ήταν ενθουσιώδης. Ολοι σχεδόν οι κάτοικοι τον καλωσόρισαν χαρούμενοι, ενώ οι καμπάνες όλων των Ναών κτυπούσαν χαρμόσυνα. Τόση ήταν η αγάπη και η εκτίμηση των πρώτων αγωνιστών για τους ομόδοξους Ιερείς.

Ο Εσπερινός άρχισε ήσυχα και ειρηνικά. Το ίδιο ήσυχα θα συνεχιζόταν και θα τελείωνε και όλη η αγρυπνία αν δεν έκαναν την εμφάνισή τους τα ανεπιθύμητα, για το βράδυ εκείνο, όργανα της τάξεως, περικυκλώνοντας τον Ναό με κακές διαθέσεις. Και εύλογο γεννάται το ερώτημα: Μα γιατί αυτή η πολιορκία; Στο Ναό δεν βρίσκονταν παράνομοι. Δεν εκρύβοντο ληστές. Μόνον άξιοι τηρητές των Πατρίων Παραδόσεων είχαν συγκεντρωθεί για να δοξάσουν με κάθε τιμή τους προστάτες Αγίους τους. Τι λοιπόν ζητούσαν τα όργανα με τόση επιμονή; Απλούστατα ζητούσαν να εκτελέσουν την διαταγή του σχισματικού αρχιεπισκόπου Αθηνών, να συλλάβουν τον ιερουργούντα Ιερέα και να διαλύσουν το πλήθος των πανηγυριστών.

Μπορεί να είχαν όμως λάβει εντολές τα όργανα, αλλά και οι Χριστιανοί της Μάνδρας έπρεπε να εκτελέσουν τις θεόσδοτες εντολές Του και να μην επιτρέψουν την παραμικρή διατάραξη της Εορτής. Έτσι οι πόρτες του Ναού κλείνονται και η ακολουθία συνεχίζεται πιο κατανυκτική. Είναι διότι γίνεται κάτω από την απειλή των όπλων.

Κτυπούν με μανία τα όργανα. Κτυπούν όπου βρουν. Πόρτες, παράθυρα, τοίχους! Σπάζουν τζάμια! Και είναι ο 20ος αιώνας!!! Ο πολιτισμός θεριεύει. Και υποτίθεται ότι τα ατομικά και θρησκευτικά δικαιώματα ασκούνται με κάθε

ελευθερία! Τι τρομερή αλήθεια! Και βρισκόμαστε μάλιστα στα ιερά χώματα της Ορθοδόξου Χριστιανικής Ελλάδας!!!

Προσεύχονται οι Πιστοί μέσα στο Ναό ήσυχα και ευλαβικά.

Μαίνονται, ουρλιάζουν και αισχρολογούν έξω τα όργανα των σχισματικών.

Ζητούν μέσα ενίσχυση από τον Κύριο οι Πιστοί για να αντέξουν τον άδικο διωγμό τους. Ζητούν επίσης και τα όργανα έξω ενίσχυση επιγόντως για να επιτύχουν τον βέβηλο σκοπό τους. Είχαν πράγματι ανάγκη από ενισχύσεις!!! Πως θα συνελάμβαναν έναν πράο και άκακο Ιερουργό; Πως θα αντιμετώπιζαν τους άοπλους Πιστούς;

Κοντεύει να ξημερώσει. Μέσα στο Ναό έχουν μεταλάβει οι περισσότεροι και περιμένουν το "Δι΄ ευχών..." του Ιερέως και αφου΄πάρουν την ευλογία του, να τον οδηγήσουν σε ένα κοντινό σπίτι να ξεκουραστεί. Πως θα γινόταν όμως αυτό, που έξω καιροφυλακτούσαν οι πραιτωριανοί των σχισματικών;

Μα προ ολίγου πήραν μέσα τους δύναμη από τον Χριστό! Δεν τους σκιάζει τίποτα. Προχωρούν άφοβα. Οι πόρτες ανοίγουν. Οι πιστοί αρχίζουν να εξέρχονται. Ζωντανό τείχος από ευσεβείς γυναίκες της Μάνδρας έχουν περικυκλώσει τον κινδυνεύοντα Ιερέα. Μέσα από το σκοτάδι ξεπροβάλουν μπροστά τους σαν ανήμερα θηρία τα όργανα των σχισματικών. 

Απαιτούν την παράδοση του Ιερέως.

Μα γιατί άραγε; είναι το δικαιολογημένο ερώτημα των Πιστών. Μήπως εγκλημάτισε, μήπως καταχράσθηκε ή μήπως εβεβήλωσε;

Οχι! Τίποτα από όλα αυτά! Κι όμως τον ζητούν! Και λοιπόν; Ποιός θα τους τον παραδώσει; Δεν υπάρχει Ιούδας!

- Μόνο σαν θα περάσετε πάνω από τα πτώματά μας θα πάρετε τον Ιερέα μας!

ακούγεται σταθερή και δυνατή μια γυναικεία φωνή. Είναι η 27χρονη Αικατερίνα Ρούττη (σημ. 1) που άφησε σπίτι, άνδρα και παιδιά και ήλθε να υπερασπισθεί τον Ιερέα. Δεν την φοβίζουν οι φοβέρες των όπλων και γι΄ αυτό αποφασισμένη φωνάζει.

Οι αστυνομικές δυνάμεις δεν μπορούν να διασπάσουν τον ανθρώπινο κλοιό. Αρχίζουν τότε να πυροβολούν για να τους εκφοβίσουν. Κάτι καταφέρνουν με αυτό. Απομακρύνονται αρκετοί πιστοί, αλλά το ζωντανό τείχος γύρω από τον Ιερέα παραμένει άφοβο. Σε λίγο όμως θα καμφθεί και αυτό εξ'αιτίας της απανθρώπου και αγρίας επιθέσεως των οργάνων, των οποίων μία σφαίρα κτυπά στον κρόταφο την αείμνηστον ομολογήτρια Αγγελική Κατσαρέλλη (σημ. 2).

Η Αικατερίνη Ρούττη όμως, η ψυχή της άμυνας, δεν το βάζει κάτω. Ελέγχει με θάρρος τους σχισματικούς μέχρι τη στιγμή που ένα όργανο θα σηκώσει το κοντάκι του όπλου για να κτυπήσει τον Ιερέα!

Και τότε, Υψιστε Θεέ, τι τόλμη, τι αυτοθυσία!!!

Μόλις η Αικατερίνα αντιλαμβάνεται την κακούργο χειρονομία, σπεύδει να σώσει τον Ιερέα, καλύπτοντάς τον με το σώμα της, οπότε και δέχεται αυτή το θανάσιμο εκείνο κτύπημα στο πίσω μέρος της κεφαλής. Η Αικατερίνα πέφτει στο δάπεδο του Ναού βάφοντάς το με το μαρτυρικό της αίμα, ενώ ακούγεται για τελευταία φορά να ψιθυρίζει:

- Παναγία μου!

Οι γυναίκες με αγωνία και λυγμούς σηκώνουν το αιμόφυρτο σώμα της και αφού προηγουμένως ειδοποιείται και ο άνδρας της, την μεταφέρουν στον "Ευαγγελισμό" των Αθηνών. Μαζί με την Αικατερίνα μεταφέρεται στον "Ευαγγελισμό" και η τραυματισθείσα ομολογήτρια Αγγελική Κατσαρέλλη, η οποία και εξέρχεται μετά από λίγες ημέρες.

Η Αικατερίνη επτά ολόκληρες ημέρες ακίνητη, υπέφερε αφάνταστα χωρίς καν να μπορεί να μιλήσει. Με νοήματα ζήτησε μολύβι και χαρτί για να γράψει με δυσκολία στον άντρα της να προσέχει τα αγγελούδια της, τα δύο μικρά της, που ήταν τεσσάρων χρονών το πρώτο και λίγων μηνών το δεύτερο.

Στις 15 Νοεμβρίου 1927 με το πάτριο Εορτολόγιο, πρώτη ημέρα της νηστείας των Χριστουγέννων και ώρα 4 το πρωΐ, παρέδωσε την μαρτυρική της ψυχή εις χείρας του στεφανοδότου Χριστού.

Το τότε Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της Ιεράς Κοινότητας Γ.Ο.Χ. Αθηνών, κινητοποίησε όλα τα υπ΄ αυτής παραρτήματα, ώστε να παρευρεθούν στην κηδεία της όσο το δυνατόν περισσότεροι Πιστοί.

Επιζώντες αυτόπτες μάρτυρες της κηδείας, μας πληροφόρησαν ότι αυτό που παρακολούθησαν την ημέρα εκείνη δεν ήταν κηδεία αλλά ιερά Λειτανία μαρτυρικού λειψάνου. . Χιλιάδες πιστοί συνόδευσαν την πομπή, άλλοι κρατούντες άνθη άλλοι λαμπάδες και άλλοι φοίνικες.

Η μάρτυς δεν έχει πλέον ανάγκη από τις δικές μας πρόσκαιρες τιμές και δόξες.

Η τιμή που πρέπει να της απονείμει κανείς είναι εκείνη που ο Αγιος Χρυσόστομος μας υποδεικνύει: "Τιμή μάρτυρος, Μίμησις μάρτυρος".

Εγκαρδιώνεστε λοιπόν, Χριστιανοί, και παραδειγματίζεσθε από την νεαρά μητέρα των 27 χρόνων, που έχυσε το αίμα της για την Αγίαν μας Πίστιν. Η νεομάρτυς Αικατερίνα, αποτελεί "τιμή και δόξα και κάυχημα" για την Εκκλησία των Γνησίων Ορθοδόξων Χριστιανών και θα προβάλλεται σε κάθε περίσταση, ως υπόδειγμα πίστεως, αγάπης, αυταπαρνήσεως και θυσίας για τις Πατρίους Παραδόσεις.

Αικατερίνη ! Η επόχή ας δεν διέθεσε αγχόνες, καμίνους, ξίφη. Διέθεσε τον υποκόπανο του όπλου για να σε φοβίσει. Πόσο φτωχό αλήθεια όπλο, για να σε κάνει να απαρνηθείς μία ζωντανή Πίστη! Κι όμως εσύ έδωσες την ζωή σου γι' αυτή.

Οι πρεσβείες σου ας μας ενισχύσουν και οι προσευχές σου ας προασπίζουν το Σώμα της Ορθοδόξου ημών Εκκλησίας από κάθε "δολίως κινούμενον" εχθρικό βέλος. Αμήν.

------------------------------------------

Σημ.1 -- Επιζώντες συγγενείς της νεομάρτυρος Αικατερίνης Ρούττη μας

έκαναν γνωστή και αυτή τη λεπτομέρεια. Ο άνδρας της μετά το τέλος

του Εσπερινού, που παρακολούθησαν μαζί με τα παιδιά τους, ζήτησε να

επιστρέψουν στο σπίτι τους διότι προέβλεπε επεισόδια. Η Αικατερίνα

τον ακολούθησε. Της ήταν όμως αδύνατο να παραμείνει στο κρεββάτι,

όταν η αδελφή της την πληροφόρησε αργά τη νύχτα για τον κίνδυνο που

διέτρεχαν όλοι στην Εκκλησία από τα καταφθάνοντα όργανα. Αμέσως και

με προφύλαξη εγκατέλειψε άνδρα και μικρά παιδιά και έτρεξε να ενωθεί

με τους αγωνιζόμενους, έτρεξε προς το μαρτύριο !!!

Σημ.2 -- Η αείμνηστος ομολογήτρια Αγγελική Κατσαρέλλη έφερε και

επεδείκνυε με "καμάρι" μέχρι τέλους της ζωής της το "στίγμα του Κυρίου"

στο μέτωπό της που μια δολοφονική σφαίρα χάραξε τη νύκτα εκείνη.--

Συνέντευξη Μητρ. Γεροντίου

.

Συνέντευξη του Μητροπολίτου Πειραιώς & Σαλαμίνος κ. Γεροντίου Β' για όλα όσα αφορούν την Εκκλησία Γ.Ο.Χ. Ελλάδος.

.