MUNICH: Troubles in the Church Abroad—from German Diocesan News—February 2002

MUNICH: On the Troubles in Our Church (from the German Diocesan News)--February 2002

Since from the time of the Council of Bishops and subsequently a small group of people has attempted to arouse discord within our Church, the editors of German Diocesan News [Vestnik Germanskoy eparkhii] found it worthwhile to make several clarifications in order to avoid misunderstandings. The Council of Bishops held this last year in New York was convened in accordance with the wish of His Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, the fourth First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which he expressed in the July session of the Synod of the same year. Vladyka Metropolitan declared his wish to retire in light of his age and ill health. Over the last several months, Vladyka Metropolitan's sickness became especially apparent. Vladyka not only immediately forgot what he had just said, but, more dangerously, began issuing contradictory documents, which disrupted the normal order of Church life. For example, Metr. Vitaly unilaterally and without canonical authority removed the suspension of several clergymen in Western Europe which had been imposed by the Synod of Bishops in April 2001, which was conducted under his own presidency and signed by him as the president (see Synodal Ukase of 11/24 April 2001).

Seeing that as a result of such actions, a very complicated situation developed, Metr. Vitaly asked the Synod to convene an extraordinary Council of Bishops to elect a new First Hierarch.

The sessions of the Council of Bishops began in the Synod building in New York on Tuesday 10/23 October, on the feast day of the Optina Elders. All the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia arrived, with the exception of two ailing bishops (Archbishop Seraphim and Bishop Daniel) and two bishops from Russia (Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Benjamin).

Metropolitan Vitaly came to the first session of the Council, handed out envelopes to all the bishops and left...This surprised the participants of the Council. All present were also surprised by the contents of the envelope received from Vladyka Metropolitan, which contained his "Declaration," addressed to the Council, and already distributed on the internet by anti-Church websites.

In this "Declaration" he stated that his brother bishops had fallen into sin, and the Council a "meeting of irresponsible persons," on the basis of nothing more than his presumption that the "council intends to discuss questions of the possible unification with the false-church of the Moscow Patriarchate," which was not discussed at the Council.
For members of the Council who knew Vladyka Vitaly's style, it was obvious that this "Declaration" was not written by him. After the morning session a committee was sent to Metr. Vitaly consisting of three bishops, whom he warmly received and to whom he gave his agreement to take part in the election of the new First Hierarch.

On Wednesday morning after Liturgy in the Synodal church, where the election was to take place, the Metropolitan asked his brother bishops what time the election of the new First Hierarch was to take place, which was viewed by the bishops as a sign of the Metropolitan's wish to take part in the voting.

But then, unexpectedly, Vladyka Metropolitan did not come to vote, but sent in his voting ballot and so participated nonetheless.

His Eminence Laurus was elected the new, fifth First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. On the same day, after the election, Metropolitan Vitaly came to the afternoon session and addressed the Council with words of greeting, congratulating Metropolitan Laurus and the Council of Bishops with the election of a new First Hierarch. He stated that he hands over his powers to the newly-elected First Hierarch, that he is "after all, 91 years old," and he rejoiced that he can finally retire, something that he truly earned (all as though there had been no "Pre-Conciliar Declaration.")

At the request of Metr. Laurus to help him in the administration of the Church, Metr. Vitaly responded that he would be happy to help whenever needed. After this, Vladyka Vitaly no longer took part in the sessions of the Council of Bishops, but from time to time, a delegation consisting of three bishops reported to him on the work of the Council.
The serene communion of the Vladyka with his brethren bishops ironed out the unpleasant impressions created by the Pre-Conciliar "Declaration."

In order to understand the reasons for the departure of Vladyka Vitaly from the Synod to Canada on the following day, unfortunately, it is necessary to touch upon the person of L. Rosniansky, who for the last 12 years was the secretary of the Metropolitan, who, exploiting the full trust of the Metropolitan, intervened in an unacceptable manner in Church matters. (As one example of such activity, Rosniansky hid important letters from the heads of Local Churches from the Council.)

This festering problem could be resolved only by the Council of Bishops. Taking into consideration the all-around activities of L. Rosniansky as the secretary of the First Hierarch, the Council deemed this activity as anti-ecclesiastical and decided to terminate her employment immediately. (The question of terminating her had been raised before on more than one occasion, but the bishops knew the devotion of Metr. Vitaly to his personal secretary, and, not wishing to hurt their First Hierarch, tolerated the presence of this woman in the Synod. Since Vladyka Vitaly retired, the Council of Bishops unanimously took the decision to fire her.)

L. Rosniansky, ejected from the Synodal building, called the police, asserting that the Metropolitan was allegedly being held against his will in the Synod and was deprived of the medical attention he needed, and was helpless. The police who arrived found that L. Rosniansky's accusations were unfounded. Moreover, the local court in New York, on the basis of the report filed by the police summoned by L. Rosniansky (they became witnesses to how L. Rosniansky and her supporters, not giving the Metropolitan a chance to think things through, drove him away from the Synod) ruled that the Metropolitan should remain at the Synod with the bishops.

It is likely that the ejection of Rosniansky from the Synod was the main reason for the departure of Metr. Vitaly with her to the Transfiguration Skete in Mansonville (Canada) on the eve of the celebration of the enthronement of the new First Hierarch. There, Metr. Vitaly signed a new declaration in which he named the Council of Bishops "a thieves' council."
For this reason, Metr. Vitaly did not participate in the enthronement of his successor, Metr. Laurus, on Sunday 15/28 October.

Already upon the conclusion of the sessions of the Council it became known that Metr. Vitaly, along with suspended clergymen and by this time the defrocked Bishop Varnava of Cannes had "consecrated," against Church canon, new bishops, and arbitrarily founded a new organization, subsequently called by them the "Russian Orthodox Church in Exile."

Church canons prescribe that in all imporant decisions the elder hierarch (in this case the metropolitan) consult the other bishops. Neither the removal of the suspensions imposed by the Synod, nor the consecrations of new bishops cannot be made unilaterally by the metropolitan--especially after he retired of his own accord.

It is known that the candidacies of those recently "consecrated" by Metr. Vitaly were not approved by anyone. Bishop Varnava, having taken part in these consecrations, had recently been defrocked, so all his clerical actions have no validity. By this time he was a mere monk, a fact of which he had already been notified. The most recent serious violation of the vicar Bishop Varnava was the revolt he headed against his own ruling bishop, Bishop Ambroise, and the whole Council of Bishops, and the arbitrary creation of his own diocese in Western Europe (see Vestnik, No. 3/2001). It is further worth noting that Metr. Vitaly could not serve over the previous three years, even on great holidays of Easter and the Nativity of Christ, for reasons of his health. How he could have performed episcopal consecrations it is difficult to say, but in any case, these actions, in light of the aforementioned reasons, are devoid of grace and of ecclesial recognition. We are convinced that Metr. Vitaly through reasons of his health cannot be held responsible for what he has done, and that the enemies of the Church--both seen and unseen--exploited the aged hierarch in an attempt to "legalize" under Metr. Vitaly's name their previously-conceived schism.

We know that when historical persecutions against the Church end, such similar schisms arise, and at this time, also the devil does not idle. But we also know that this temptation, having come through a small group of irreponsible persons, cannot seize the entire Church. We pray that Metr. Vitaly willingly returns to the Synodal house and enjoys the care prepared for him. At the present time the situation is as follows: the Court has given preliminary guardianship over Metr. Vitaly to Bp. Gabriel. But this decision was immediately protested by the supporters of L. Rosniansky. Vladyka Vitaly was prepared to return to the Synod, but on the basis of these objections, he is being held in Mansonville.
It is worthwhile to briefly touch upon the "declarations" of Vladyka Vitaly against the Council of Bishops of 2001, and the documents of recent years contradicting the spirit of Conciliar documents signed by him as well.

In these "declarations" Vladyka Vitaly, on one hand, refers to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia adopted by the Council of Bishops in 1956, in which it is written that the First Hierarch "is elected for life by the Council of Bishops from among those of the episcopate who are available" (IV, The First Hierarch, No. 34), and on the other hand, underscores his succession of the previous First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the sense of the continuation of the "course of the Church." Yet firstly, in that same chapter on the First Hierarch the following is stated: "The First Hierarch may use his right of protest in those cases when he recognizes that resolutions adopted by the Synod are not conducive to the well-being and benefit of the Church. He should give reasons for his protest in writing, and suggest to Synod that they review the matter. If the Synod repeats its former resolution, the First Hierarch may suspend its going into effect after summoning a Council or, in writing, request the opinion of all members of the Council, upon whom depends the final resolution of the question." (IV, The First Hierarch, No. 38).
These Regulations expose the "declarations" made in the name of Metr. Vitaly, directed against the decisions of the Council of Bishops as violating the spirit of the conciliarity traditionally present in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

After Metr. Vitaly positioned himself opposite to the Council of Bishops and all the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (except the suspended Bishop Varnava) and the heading of an unlawful parallel union, it cannot be said that he holds to the course kept to by his predecessors.

The preceding First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia never opposed themselves to the Council of Bishops never put into contradiction their own opinion to that of the Council, even if in one question or another they had a different judgment. The best example of this was the third First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky).

In personal letters (see, for example, his letter to Fr. Victor Potapov of 26 June/9 July 1980) in which he expressed his opinion about the "gracelessness" of the Moscow Patriarchate (as did Metr. Vitaly), but he did not put this opinion in opposition (in the spirit of the above-mentioned No. 34 on the rights of the First Hierarch) to the higher opinion of the Council of Bishops, which did not see the MP in that way. As is well-known, Metr. Philaret did not separate himself on that basis from unity with his brother bishops.

In regards to Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy, in condemning Sergianism, they were alien to the the idea of the Moscow Patriarchate as being "graceless." Metr. Anastassy, for instance, even after the war called the Moscow Patriarchate the "Russian Church," and Metr. Sergius (Stragorodsky), who had already become Patriarch, the "Helmsman of the Russian Church" (see the Epistle on the Day of the Nativity of Our Lord of 1945), Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) the "Head of the Russian Church" (see the Paschal Epistle of 1948) and the "leader of the Russian Church" (see the Epistle to the Russian Orthodox People on the Appeal of Patriarch Alexy to the Bishops and Clergy of the So-called Karlovatsky Orientation.")

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia he called the "Branch of the Russian Church [which is] Abroad" (ibid.).
The spirit of conciliarity was violated yet more in the arbitrary founding of a parallel organization, the justification of which can in no way be found in the Regulations of the Council of 1956 on the First Hierarch, where it says that he is chosen for life. In the history of the Rocor there was already an instance of the "violation" of these Regulations by Metr. Anastassy, for the same reasons: age and physical inability to lead the Church. Unfortunately, Vladyka Vitaly could not follow the example of his predecessor. The level of his responsibility for this cannot be for us to judge.
© Vestnik Germanskoi Eparkhii, 2001-2002