An open letter to an open letter: Statements on the OCA and Russian Orthodoxy

This is my open letter in response to an open letter that was sent to the OCA hierarchy. The author left the OCA over the fact that we did not recognize the schismatic OCU.  And now he writes demanding changes for us.  Here is my response.

Hopefully, you have no idea what I am talking about, as I wish that these materials did not proliferate.  But if you read some of the chatter on the internet up to this date regarding the OCA, certain academics, Russkiy Mir, the conflict, the relationship with the MP, and other related topics, you are aware that what might be described as incredible claims, and subsequent demands have been made by a certain crowd.  We should always strive for unity, and I do not enjoy arguments, particularly with those who share in the same Communion Chalice.

https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2022/03/31/open-letter-to-metropolitan-tikhon-by-vyacheslav-karpov-phd/

July 19/6, 2022

St. Seraphim Sarovsky (N.S.)/Venerable Sisoes the Great (O.S.)

Dear Doctor, 

I am an OCA parishioner, deeply rooted in this jurisdiction, whose ancestors came from pre-Communist Russia.  I understand that you are a more recent immigrant to this country from Russia, and much of what I offer here is a sincere expression of my own Russian heritage, from pre-Revolutionary times.  I will also note, that like the vast majority of Russian immigrants that created the North American Russian Metropolia (what became the OCA) my ancestors came from the western regions of the Russian Empire - what is now Ukraine and Belarus after the Soviet Union created those political entities.  After reviewing your letter to my first hierarch, I am left with the deep desire to add commentary for your consideration and the consideration of everyone else who might read your letter. 

I assure you that this is sincere, and that I do not intend to be malicious, or even to single you out.  This addresses more broad criticisms that I have heard and read of the OCA over the years, inclusive of your own.  I considered this a good opportunity to engage them.

The call for the Lives of the Saints to be revised in a couple of places in the letter.

The Lives of the Saints are precious records that not only inspire us, but instruct us.  They were written, in many cases, in a more pure time and place, a time before the proliferation of modern nationalist movements, and in an Orthodox context.  If I am not mistaken, most of the Lives of the Saints as recorded on the OCA website and in other publications are direct translations from the Lives that were compiled by St. Dimitriy Rostovsky, who was actually from what is now Ukraine.  

There is a demand that these Lives be changed to fit some politically correct standard.  However, watering them down this way to fit modern popular sensibilities is to make them less Orthodox.  The influence that will be imposed on the Lives will come not from the Church, but from modern, western heterodox culture.  To do this is to struggle against actual Orthodox teaching.  

There is a complaint that the lives of Russian saints are heavily emphasized.  Are you unaware of the OCA's roots?  How we come from the bosom of the Russian Orthodox Church, receiving our Apostolic Succession through it?  Are you unaware that many OCA parishioners and clergy are of Russian background, and our Russian Orthodox tradition is important to us?  I might add that saints of various nationalities are featured in the catechetical materials.  You will also find plenty of saints on the OCA website who were Greek, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Latin, etc.

There is a complaint that the names "Rus" and "Russia" are too intertwined, such that there is some deception.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Russia today is a part of Rus.  The very name of the country is derived from the root word "Rus" and based on the Greek name of Rus: "Rosia" (Ῥωσία), which applied not only to Moscow but also Kiev and Galicina.  The lands of the Russian Orthodox were called "Russia" prior to the Bolshevik Revolution.  In both English and Russian, hymnography and iconography uses the term "Russian Land" (Русская земля).  Much of the language today regarding Rus has been shifted and distorted by modern nationalist movements, which seek to rationalize why they should break Rus apart, and seek to invent differences and divisions.  The historiography presented in the Lives of the Saints is the Church's historiography, not the historiography of some political movement.  It is part of what some call the "Mind of the Church." 

One inconvenient fact, that you seem to be targeting, is that the Lives and other sources of wisdom defend Holy Russia instead of Ukrainianism.  The Lives, particularly of saints such as St. Iov Pochaevsky, St. Georgiy Konisky, St. Martyr Vasili Martysh, St. Martyr Afanasiy Bestsky, St. Maxim Sandovich, St. Lavrentiy Chernigovsky and others, reveal the realities of western heterodox interference in what is now Ukraine and Belarus: the western regions of Rus.  The national idea of Ukraine was born from the very loins of the Uniates - our fallen brothers, some of whom became our oppressors.  This national idea was also, secondarily, championed by liberals who opposed the rule of our Orthodox Tsar.

If you find that the Lives are "too political" and do not mesh with modern American Classical Liberal sensibilities, that is because they do not.  Orthodoxy teaches something different than  Enlightenment Era metaphysics.  If you think that they are too harsh, that is because the lives of the saints are telling you to oppose heterodoxy.  If they are too undemocratic, that is because they support Orthodox Christian Monarchy, a traditional hierarchal view of the universe, and use Truth as the measure of goodness as opposed to liberty and rights.

When it comes to Russia and Ukraine specifically, could it be that traditional Church writings actually support the concept of Russkiy Mir and some are just uncomfortable with that? 

 

The call for us to recognize and go into communion with the "Orthodox Church of Ukraine."  Even going as far as to indicate that the OCU will be "more important to the OCA" than the MP.

The OCU is a schismatic body.  We cannot go into communion with it.  Those who knowlingly go into communion with schismatics, go into schism themselves.  Not only is the OCU at odds with our mother Church in a political sense (and by default, us) but is composed of ethnophyletist renegades that broke off from it.  They not only betrayed the MP itself, but our own traditions in the OCA.  Our ancestors held the line and were loyal to our Russian tradition.  Even through the tumultuous times of Godless Communism, when our relationship with the MP was strained, we sought unity and reconciliation, and eventually achieved that in 1970.  Meanwhile, Ukrainianists like those in the OCU, were either Uniates or were, prideful, disobedient schismatics.  Mind you, many if not most of our people were from what is now Ukraine, yet identified as Russian.

The call for suspending all activities with the MP, ceasing commemoration of Patriarch Kirill as well as added conditions regarding investigations.  The insistence that commemoration and joint activities cease until such time that these investigations are concluded.

This is rather open-ended.  It is almost as if we would be setting this up to create a permanent end to joint activities with the MP.  There is no telling how long hostilities will continue.  Just look at the conflict in Donbass!  8 long years!  Nobody will be completely satisfied with investigations, and there will indefinitely be calls for more.  A "temporary" suspension of commemorations of Patriarch Kirill is misplaced.  He is a canonical hierarch, and we have not broken communion with the MP, even if we disagree with His Holiness.  

It is almost as if these measures are trying to prevent reconciliation and trying to generate further tensions. 

The call for the sealed letter to Patriarch Kirill as well as any sealed response to be divulged.

 

That would be more than uncouth.  It would be a compromise of integrity.  Not to mention unnecessary.  What would be the benefit?

 

 

 

The call for concelebration and collaboration with the Ukrainian jurisdictions in the US and Canada.

Those jurisdictions continue to aide and abet the schismatic OCU. Their bishops were part of setting it up, let us not forget.  We already have concelebrations with them since they are part of the EP, though we should be cautious.  We already have collaboration with them through the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops.  It sounds like some just want to step things up, and we are aware of the sympathies for the OCU.  

 

Although we should always seek peace and reconciliation, I will add that the Ukrainianist jurisdictions are traditional rivals/competitors with the OCA; not merely in some innocuous way, such as poaching parishioners, but since they historically opposed our Metropolia in favor of Ukrainianism, with all of the ecclesiastical disruptions and complexities (including schisms) endemic to that nationalist movement.  This is not about "old hat" or "payback" for past divisions.  It is in fact, an ongoing difference.  The Holy Synod of the OCA refused to recognize the OCU, a schismatic jurisdiction aided and abetted by them.

The call for our representation Church in Moscow to be suspended, etc.

 

This is a useless move, and only severs ties and weakens the OCA.  The only objective accomplished by such a move would be to create new divisions and foment conflict.  Is that the objective?  

 

 

 

The call for the Patriarch Kirill Endowment to be ended.

 

Another useless move that accomplishes nothing and creates divisions.

 

The call for an official letter condemning ROC hierarchs.

 

Then should we also hold all American hierarchs responsible for actions of the US government?  Was Metropolitan Ireney Bekish responsible for the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam?  Was Metropolitan Herman Swaiko responsible for Abu Graib, or the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War?  Both of these heirarchs blessed US troops and did not condemn the wars.

 

In practical terms, this move would resolve nothing.  

 

The seeking to enlighten our hierarchs that the OCA is strong, multi-ethnic, and relatively young.

 

And since when is the Church a democracy?  What does youth have to do with this?  Should we rely upon unwise, unlearned youths to reform us?  This sounds like Protestantism.

 

 

Raising the possibility of the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly being revoked as a result of implementing the demands.

Is that by design?  Would the EP be standing in the wings, waiting to offer an alternative tomos of their own for us, perhaps?

We should avoid conflict, particularly when it is unnecessary.  We ought to maintain good and close relations with our mother Church in Moscow.  Metropolitan Tikhon has already voiced his disagreement with Patriarch Kirill and others.  This was made even clearer at his commencement address at St.Vladimir's Seminary this year.  Why should more be done?  Are we supposed to deliberately alienate our mother Church?

The MP, like every single other autocephalous Orthodox Church is filled with fallible people.  We can criticize them and have disagreements.  But we must also have dialogue.  What has happened with this war, is a political entanglement.  Patriarch Kirill has reasons why he has made the choices he has made.  We can disagree with him, and talk to him.  

There are other items I could point out in the letter, with which I find fault, but for the sake of brevity, I will end here.  May God bring us peace.

With love of the Lord,

A Son of the Metropolia