This text was prepared with the blessing of our bishops, as reflecting the position of our Church.
Our attitude to the Moscow Patriarchate
We do not consider the organization headed by Patriarch Cyril of Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church, because it lost apostolic succession when Met. Sergius unlawfully seized power in the Church and caused a schism in 1927. The MP, as an organization, was created by order of Stalin by the “Council of Bishops” of 1943, attended only by bishops loyal to the Soviets, which elected a “patriarch” and established the Supreme Church Authority of the MP. Thus, in its origin, MP is a non-canonical new formation, a schism. The old ROCA did not recognize any of the “Soviet” patriarchs.
From its origin, the MP has always adhered to the principle of Sergianism, i.e., absolute, unconditional submission to the godless authorities. The current Russian regime is, in fact, based on the same KGB corporation. The MP is not “a pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), but an ideological support for the criminal Russian regime.
The MP participates in ecumenist activity, deviously justifying its participation by witnessing to Orthodoxy before the non-Orthodox. At the same time, the hierarchs of the MP put their signatures under non-Orthodox confessions of faith and violate the canons that forbid communion of prayer with the heterodox. In this way, the hierarchs of the MP depart from pure Orthodoxy.
The MP is corrupt not only in the dogmatic and canonical, but also in the spiritual and moral sphere. The spirit of conciliarity in the Church is manifested in spiritual freedom and love. In the MP, on the contrary, there is an absolute dictatorship of the administrative vertical, which does not tolerate the slightest manifestation of dissent. Because of this, there is a constant anti-selection, i.e. the process of getting rid of those in whom conscience is still alive. Lies, hypocrisy, greed, and the double life of depraved bishops became the norm in the MP. What does this structure have in common with the Church of Christ?
Therefore, we do not believe that in such a pseudo-ecclesiastical organization the sacraments can be performed that are valid and sufficient for salvation. We do not give the blessing to our parishioners, who live far from our churches, to receive sacraments in the parishes of the MP.
In the Diaspora District of ROCA the following order is currently practiced for receiving into our Church those who have been baptised in the Moscow Patriarchate or other churches of World Orthodoxy:
If the baptism was performed in three immersions, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we must perform only chrismation. If the baptism was performed by affusion or sprinkling, then full baptism and chrismation must be performed. With the permission of the bishop, in the spirit of oikonomia, it is acceptable to receive parishioners of the MP into our Church through confession and communion.
Canonical status of our Church
In order to understand the canonical situation of the Russian Church over the past 100 years, it is necessary to say a few words about the Decree of holy Patriarch Tikhon and his Synod, #362.
The Decree #362 was issued on November 20, 1920. At that time, it became obvious that the Bolsheviks would not allow the Supreme Church Administration (SCA) to function normally. Decree #362 gives instructions to the bishops of the Russian Church on how they should act in the event that the SCA ceases to exist. Since we do not recognise the canonicity of the Moscow Patriarchate, Decree #362 is the canonical foundation for both the former ROCA and the newly-formed ROCA groups that emerged as a result of the unification of the ROCA with the MP.
According to the Decree, the bishops of the Russian Church should organise Church Districts, consisting of several dioceses, on a voluntary basis.
It is important to note that, despite the existing differences between the Bishops of the Russian Church, they all consider Decree #362 to be their canonical foundation. There is a consensus among all Bishops on this point. Unfortunately, the primates of some of these groups claim exclusivity and domination, which contradicts the Decree of Patriarch Tikhon and has no canonical grounds.
The Decree #362 does not prescribe the creation of a single SCA for all bishops of the Russian Church. The canonical centre of Supreme Church Administration can be restored only by the Local Council of the Russian Church. All existing church jurisdictions are temporary. They do not have the authority to pass judgment on one another, and they will all have to give an account of their activities to the Local Council, if one is convened, or to the judgment of God.
Our Diaspora District of ROCA was formed by the clergy and laity who disagree with the unification of the ROCA with the MP, signed on May 17, 2007. At that time, the only bishop of the ROCA, who did not accept the union, was Bishop Agafangel (Pashkovsky), later Metropolitan. The first episcopal consecrations were performed: of hegumen Andronik (Kotliaroff) on December 7, 2007, and of hegumen Sophrony (Musienko) on December 8, 2007, with the help of the bishops of the Synod in Resistance: Bishop Ambrose (Baird) and Bishop George (Puhate).
However, over time it became obvious that Met. Agafangel, because of his moral qualities and uncanonical actions, does not at all correspond to the high position of the head of the Church. In January 2017, Archbishop Andronik and Archbishop Sophrony convened a church council at Mountain View, New York, at which the canonical and moral violations of Metr. Agafangel were brought to light and a decision was made to withdraw from his jurisdiction.
At the same time, it was decided that the dioceses abroad and in Russia should form two separate Church Districts, administratively independent and in Eucharistic communion with each other.
On April 4, 2017, Eucharistic communion was established with Bishop Stephan of Trenton. Bishop Stephan was ordained by the Synod of the Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC). (The RTOC is one of the groups formed as a reaction to the rapprochement between the ROCA and the MP. The RTOC was created in 2002 by the ROCA bishops: Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Benjamin.)
On June 4, 2017, hegumen Andrei (Erastov) was ordained bishop for the Australian Diocese.
On September 1, 2017, the Diaspora District was formed, which included Archbishop Andronik, Bishop Stephan and Bishop Andrei.
Bishop Stefan passed away on August 22, 2018.
On September 18, 2020, Eucharistic communion was established with Bishop Akakije and Bishop Nectarije of the Serbian True Orthodox Church (STOC). The episcopate of the STOC was also ordained by the RTOC.
Our attitude to Cyprianism
In 1994, ROCA established communion with the Synod in Resistance. Met. Cyprian (Koutsoumbas), the head of this Synod, is known as the author of a special ecclesiology. This move of the ROCA Synod was in our opinion a historic mistake that has caused confusion and division. The ROCA Synod declared in 1994 that “The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principals as our Russian Church Outside of Russia”. In our opinion, this statement is simply not true. What ROCA had in common with the Synod in Resistance was a certain leniency toward the World Orthodoxy in comparison with some other True-Orthodox Synods, but ROCA has never shared Met. Cyprian’s erroneous ecclesiological teaching.
It is important to note, that the communion with the Synod in Resistance did not bring about any changes in the official ROCA ecclesiology. Moreover, only very few in the ROCA knew about the special teaching of Met. Cyprian and had an idea of its content.
The teaching of Met. Cyprian arose as a reaction to the position of other Greek True Orthodox synods (including his own synod which he separated himself from), which declared the New Calendar Greek Church to be without grace. Met. Cyprian did not agree with this opinion, considering it radical. Met. Cyprian asserted the opposite, i.e., that the sacraments of the New Calendarist-ecumenists were valid and grace-filled. To support his opinion, he created a concept, which he presented in his work “Ecclesiological Theses”.
According to Met. Cyprian:
1. At present, the Church is divided into two parts: those who are ailing in the faith – the New Calendarists-ecumenists, and those who are healthy – the Orthodox.
2. In both parts of the Church, the sacraments are valid.
3. Ecumenist heretics will remain in the Church until ecumenism is condemned by the council.
4. However, the councils of the Orthodox opponents of ecumenism are not competent to pass judgment on the heresy of ecumenism. In order to pass judgment on the heresy of ecumenism, both parts of the Church, i.e. the Orthodox and the ecumenist, must gather in a Unifying Council. It will anathematize ecumenism and reunite the divided Church.
It is not difficult to see that this concept contradicts both the teaching of the Holy Fathers and ancient church practice.
In order to clarify the position of our Bishops, we publish the following:
1. We believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The Church cannot be divided into parts with different confessions of faith. This would be contrary to the unity of the Church. Also, Met. Cyprian’s opinion that a heretical group can remain part of the Church, practically indefinitely, contradicts the dogma of the holiness of the Church. We confess together with the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council that “heresy separates every man from the Church.” Therefore, it is intolerable to say that heretics are “ailing” members of the Church.
2. According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers, the sacraments are valid only in the Church. Heretical groups do not belong to the Church, and therefore there can be no valid sacraments in them.
3. Pertinacious heretics are cut off from the Church by virtue of their heresy. I.e., when they, having accepted their false teaching, leave the teaching of the Church, then they fall away from her. In this case, the excommunication proclaimed to the heretics by the Church council is rather a statement of an already accomplished fact.
4. According to Met. Cyprian, a council for the condemnation of heresy cannot be convened without the participation of the heretics themselves. This is contrary to church practice, since many councils that condemned heresies in the past were held without the participation of heretics. The authority of a Church council depends not on its composition and the number of its participants, but on the extent to which the decisions of this council are an expression of the conciliar consciousness of the Church and are in agreement with God’s will (Acts. 15:28). Therefore, it is intolerable to say that heretics remain in the Church until they are condemned by the Unifying Council, at which Orthodox and heretics can reach an agreement.