Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Address to Forward In Faith, Sat., May 25, 2013

Address of the Pastoral Vicar, Fr. Anthony (Bondi), Western Rite Vicariate, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, to the Forward in Faith Assembly held on May 25, 2013 in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Fr. Anthony (Bondi)
Your Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, Your Excellencies: faithful bishops of the Anglican Continuum, dear Fathers, brothers all in Christ;

It was suggested to me that I give a bit of history from the writings of Metropolitan Hilarion of the External Affairs Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, then focus on the Continuum, and finally to open the floor to any of the questions you may have, keeping in mind that having established the Western Rite Vicariate in The Russian Church Outside Russia, we are still growing into our identity.

The first difficulties in relation to the Church of England emerged in 1992 when its General Synod agreed to ordain women to the priesthood. The Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church came out with an official statement expressing regret and concern over this decision as contradicting the tradition of the Early Church.

One might ask why our Church should have concerned itself at all with this matter? By the early 90s the Protestant world had already ordained many women pastors and even women bishops. But the unique point here was that the Anglican Community had long sought rapprochement with the Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox Christians recognized the existence of apostolic continuity in Anglicanism. From the 19th century, Anglican members of the Association of Eastern Churches sought "mutual recognition" with the Orthodox Church and its members believed that "both Churches preserved the apostolic continuity and true faith in the Saviour and should accept each other in the full communion of prayers and sacraments".

Much has changed since. The introduction of the female priesthood in the Church of England was followed by discussions on the female episcopate. In response to the positive decision made by the Church of England's General Synod on this issue, the Department for External Church Relations published a new statement saying that this decision "has considerably complicated dialogue with the Anglicans for Orthodox Christians" and "has taken Anglicanism farther away from the Orthodox Church and contributed to further division in Christendom as a whole".

We have studied the preparatory documents for the decision on female episcopate and were struck by the conviction expressed in them that even if the female episcopate were introduced, ecumenical contacts with the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches would not come to an end. What made the authors of these documents so certain? There was a second controversial statement. The same document argued that despite a possible cooling down in relations with Catholics and Orthodox, the Church of England would strengthen and broaden its relations with the Methodist Church and the Lutheran Churches in Norway and Sweden. In other words, the introduction of the female episcopate "will bring both gains and losses". The question arises: Is not the cost of these losses too high? I can say with certainty that the introduction of the female episcopate excludes even a theoretical possibility for the Orthodox to recognize the apostolic continuity of the Anglican hierarchy.

We are also extremely concerned and disappointed by other processes that are manifesting themselves in churches of the Anglican Communion. Some Protestant and Anglican churches have repudiated basic Christian moral values by giving a public blessing to same-sex unions and ordaining homosexuals as priests and bishops. Many Protestant and Anglican communities refuse to preach Christian moral values in secular society and prefer to adjust to worldly standards.

Our Church must sever its relations with those churches and communities that trample on the principles of Christian ethics and traditional morals. Here we uphold a firm stand based on Holy Scripture. In 2003, the Russian Orthodox Church had to suspend contact with the Episcopal Church in the USA due to the fact that this Church consecrated a self-acclaimed homosexual, Gene Robertson, as bishop. The Department for External Church Relations made a special statement deploring this fact as anti-Christian and blasphemous. Moreover, the Holy Synod of our Church decided to suspend the work of the Joint Coordinating Committee for Cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Episcopal Church in the USA, which had worked very successfully for many years. The situation was aggravated when a woman bishop was installed as head of the Episcopal Church in the USA in 2006 and a lesbian was placed on the bishop's chair of Los Angeles in 2010.

Similar reasons were behind the rupture of our relations with the Church of Sweden in 2005 when this Church made a decision to bless same-sex "marriages". And recently the lesbian Eva Brunne has become the "bishop" of Stockholm.

What can these churches say to their faithful and to secular society? What kind of light do they shine upon the world (cf. Mt. 5:14)? What is their "salt"? I am afraid the words of Christ can be applied to them: If the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men (Mt. 5:13).

We are aware of the arguments used by proponents of the above-mentioned liberal innovations. Tradition is no authority for them. They believe that to make the words of Holy Scripture applicable to modernity they have to be "actualized", that is, reviewed and interpreted in an appropriate, "modern" spirit. Holy Tradition is understood as an opportunity for the Church to be continually reformed and renewed and to think critically.

The Orthodox, however, have a different understanding of Holy Tradition. It is aptly expressed in the words of Vladimir Lossky: "Tradition is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church"--the life giving to every member of the Body of Christ the ability to hear, accept and know the Truth in its inherent shining, not in the natural light of human reason".

It is impossible to pass silently by the liberalism and relativism which have become so characteristic of today’s Anglican theology. From the time of Archbishop Michael Ramsay of Canterbury, the Church of England saw the emergence of so-called modernism which rejected the very foundations of Christianity as a God-revealed religion. Among its most eloquent representatives was the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. I. A. T. Robinson, the author of the sensational book Honest to God. The Bishop of Woolwich’s worldview can be described as ‘Christian atheism’. Indeed, he rejected the existence of a personal God, of the Creator of the world and of Providence. He also denied the existence of the spiritual world in general and of the future life in particular. It should be admitted that these views provoked protests on the part of some Anglican bishops, led by Archbishop Michael Ramsey of Canterbury. 

It is appropriate to recall here the words of His Holiness Patriarch Kyril of Moscow and All Russia at the Bishops’ Conference in February 2010. Concerning the liberal novelties introduced by some Protestant communities, he stated: ‘What has happened reveals only too clearly a fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The principal problem lying at the basis of this difference is that Orthodoxy safeguards the norm of apostolic faith and order as fixed in the Holy Tradition of the Church and sees as its task to actualize this norm continually for the fulfillment of pastoral and missionary tasks. On the other hand, in Protestantism the same task allows for a theological development that can remodel this same norm. Clearly, the search for doctrinal consensus, as was the case with regard to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry in the multilateral dialogue initiated by the World Council of Churches, has lost its meaning precisely because any consensus may come under threat or may be destroyed by innovation or interpretation that will challenge the very meaning of these agreements’.

Regrettably, what His Holiness the Patriarch says about Protestantism can be applied equally to many Anglican communities. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Orthodox communities discussed seriously the recognition of Anglican priesthood based on its recognized apostolic continuity. Now we are very far from this. And the gap between the liberal Anglicans and the Orthodox keeps growing. 

One of the priorities in the work of the Russian Church today is to bear witness to the eternal significance of Christian spiritual and moral values in the life of modern society. In 2000 our Church already made a considerable contribution to the systematization of Orthodox tradition in this area by adopting a Basic Social Concept and, in 2008, a Basic Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom and Rights. Today the Church is engaged in major work to compile a Catechesis which will give a clear exposition of Christian doctrine, on the one hand, and will respond to the burning problems of today on the other. 

We are not alone in our concern for the preservation of Christian values. Liberal tendencies in Protestant and Anglican communities present a challenge to those Christians and churches that have remained faithful to Gospel principles in doctrine, church order and morality. Certainly, we seek and find allies in opposing the destruction of the very essence of Christianity. One of the major tasks in our inter-Christian work today is to unite the efforts of Christians for building a system of solidarity on the basis of Gospel morality in Europe and throughout the world. Our positions are shared by the Roman Catholic Church, with which we have held numerous meetings and conferences. Together we are considering the possibility of establishing an Orthodox-Catholic alliance in Europe for defending the traditional values of Christianity. The primary aim of this alliance would be to restore a Christian soul to Europe. We should be engaged in common defense of Christian values against secularism and relativism. 

And now...The Continuum 

When I was asked to speak before you, Mr. Spaulding gave me an easy task. He requested that I announce to you the secret of how the three Russian Orthodox jurisdictions in this country, the ROCOR, OCA and Patriarchal Churches have come together. In this he was hoping to find that magic formula of how to keep the fragmented Anglican jurisdictions from not only fragmenting further, but also re-uniting them.

Perhaps the single most important issue in this is that the FAITH and PRACTICE of the above three referenced jurisdictions are identical. The current faith and practice of the fragmented jurisdictions seem not to be. So the first suggestion is that you need to hold the same faith and practice. For too long the 1928 BCP was the agreed upon document, perhaps even more so than the creed that kept the unity of the body. With the introduction of a new prayer book in 1979 the uniting document no longer existed.

 Was the new BCP that bad? For many it was seen as a more patristic document in many ways. But its arrival was commingled with many other movements within the Episcopal Church that were not only on the edge of the Faith once delivered to the saints but in direct contradiction to it. All of this was bundled up and rejected by those who wished to maintain the traditional faith and practice. 

The winds of change in the 1960’s were powerful and they blew not only within the Anglican Church but also within the Roman Church, that one-time bastion of stability within the world. In the Episcopal Church A new source of revelation emerged—experience; after all, it was the Age of Aquarius and the sexual Revolution was having its effect and Hedonism infiltrated the most noble institutions of our societies. The effect on society was, and continues to be, devastating. 

Those Anglicans who would easily see the Book of Mormon as another form of revelation and thus excluding that sect from Christianity, see no problem with admitting “experience" -- or some other form of revelation...

So my first suggestion to unity is Return to the Faith of the Undivided Church.

Before I entered the Russian Orthodox Church I was the Archbishop of New York for the Former Exarchate of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria in the Americas. It was and is with great humility that I laid aside the episcopacy for the sake of the unity of the Church and led my Western Rite parishes into the Russian Orthodox Church as there we could find continued stability and opportunity for unity and growth. It is no secret that the Bishop to communicant ratio is the highest it has ever been in the Continuing Churches. My brothers, it is time for a fearless and moral searching inventory on whether the mind of Jesus for the unity of the Church requires yto consider continuing as a bishop. Perhaps a moratorium on any further consecrations might be in order.

So my second suggestion for unity is, if you are a bishop consider resigning for the good of the unity of the Church, and make no more bishops.

Perhaps one of the most difficult issues for you will be that of the ordination of women. There are currently many women who, accepting the discipline of their groups allowed themselves to be ordained. Now, aside from getting into the question of the “matter of the sacrament,” to use Roman terminology, or the historical understanding of the ancient canons that a bishop who does such a thing immediately deposes himself and the ordination never takes place, there are some good, holy, and sincere women who have offered themselves for the service of the Church. Not all who approached the bishops have been feminists fighting for rights. However, the 2,000 year old Tradition of the Church makes it clear that the Orthodox Apostolic teaching and practice of the Church has never allowed women to enter the priesthood. In a strict sense the diaconate is not part of the priesthood though within Holy Orders, and to be clear those women who were ordained to be deaconesses had a very limited liturgical role. The Church of Greece today has a few Deaconesses who are nuns and whose main function is to bring the sacrament to sick nuns within the cloistered community where no man may enter. At the height of the frenzied fight for the ordination of women in the Anglican Communion, an ancient mosaic was referenced. There in glowing colors was a woman next to a presbyter and beneath her image was the word presbytera. There it was at last, proof that there were women priests. The excitement was high! The women advocates were doing the “hokey-pokey” and turning themselves around with glee. But as the days were long gone when Patristics was studied, they missed a very important fact. The wife of a presbyter was called presbytera and still is within the Greek Church. The Orthodox theology of marriage is so strong that we hold that the wife of the priest is mystically present with him at the altar as they are one flesh before God. However, she is not a priest. 

My third suggestion for unity is Return to the ordination practice of the ancient Church.

You asked me for the way forward; you already have it in the Chicago “Lambeth Quadrilateral”:

1. Our earnest desire that the Savior's prayer, "That we all may be one," may, in its deepest and truest sense, be speedily fulfilled; 

2. That we believe that all who have been duly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are members of the Holy Catholic Church

3. That in all things of human ordering or human choice, relating to modes of worship and discipline, or to traditional customs, this Church is ready in the spirit of love and humility to forego all preferences of her own;

4.. That this Church does not seek to absorb other Communions, but rather, co-operating with them on the basis of a common Faith and Order, to discountenance schism, to heal the wounds of the Body of Christ, and to promote the charity which is the chief of Christian graces and the visible manifestation of Christ to the world.

But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence; which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.

Is there a way that the Anglican Patrimony can be preserved?  Yes! Within the Orthodox Church.


In 1978 the Anglican Communion's Lambeth Conference requested "that all member Churches of the Anglican Communion should consider omitting the Filioque from the Nicene Creed, and that the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission through the Anglican Consultative Council should assist them in presenting the theological issues to their appropriate synodical bodies and should be responsible for any necessary consultation with other Churches of the Western tradition."

In 1985 the General Convention of The Episcopal Church (USA) recommended that the Filioque clause should be removed from the Nicene Creed, if this were endorsed by the 1988 Lambeth Council.

In 1985 The Synodical body of the Anglican Church of Canada approved the original Nicene' Creed to be printed and used in the Alternative Service Book of the Anglican Church of Canada. 

In 1988 the conference "ask(ed) that further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognizing it to be a major point of disagreement (with the Orthodox) ... recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause."

At a subsequent joint meeting of the Anglican Primates and Anglican Consultative Council in 1993, a resolution was passed urging Anglican churches to comply with the request that "in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause."

Accordingly, at its 1994 General Convention, the Episcopal Church reaffirmed its intention to remove the words "and the son" from the Nicene Creed in the next revision of its Book of Common Prayer.

So, my brothers, when do you stop talking and start acting?

Some questions:

What will coming into Orthodoxy look like? What about our bishops?

The Russian Orthodox Church will receive bishops who bring in their parishes as mitered archpriests. They will be made Deans of their group of parishes and will have the privilege of celebrating the Western Pontifical Liturgy with miter and crosier. This is an honor that Eastern priests who have been in the Russian Church do not even automatically get after 30-40 years of service! So it is a HUGE gift. We follow the ancient canons so, like the Romans, we do not have a married episcopate. 

For the record, the Orthodox Church does not make a judgment regarding the orders of other churches. All we know is what is necessary for our own grace-filled Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) and that is that they are celebrated by Orthodox priests who have been ordained by canonical Orthodox Bishops.

The Russian Church follows the ancient Paschalion. Western Rite parishes follow the Orthodox Western calendar.

Parishes who come into the Western Rite Vicariate may continue to use the Anglican Rite or the ancient Roman Rite. Leavened bread is used for communion which may be in the form of prosphora (home baked liturgical bread) or commercially available leavened hosts. 

Fr. Anthony
Pastoral Vicar for Western Rite to Metropolitan Hilarion.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Reminiscences of a Hierarch, Regarding Western Rite in the Orthodox Church

Shared on May 22 (May 9), 2013, by Bishop Jerome of Manhattan, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

Bishop Jerome (Shaw) of Manhattan
Christ is Risen!

Many probably know most of the following already: but, as Vladyka Seraphim (Ivanoff) of blessed memory said to me long ago, "In case you don't know, I'll remind you!"

I was raised in a small New England town, and till I was 16, in the Episcopal Church. But my godfather, and also the clergyman in the next town where we had our high school, told me that "the Orthodox Church has the same history as we do, and we are in communion with them: we can go to communion in their church, and they in ours".

That turned out not to be the case. When I began learning Russian and Greek at age 14, I started to hear more and more about the Orthodox Church, and I became more and more curious, and then more and more interested.

The obvious arguments for the unique truth of the Orthodox faith, you must all know. One of them is that there had been One Church, and that Rome had become separated from what was then the rest of the Orthodox Church, and later the Anglican Church from Rome, followed by the Puritans (Congregationalists), Methodists, and others, from the Church of England.

It was also pretty obvious that Rome had never been Byzantium, and England was not Russia. So the Western Church, as is clearly documented, was "Western" in the typicon it followed, long before there was any split between the Greek vs. Latin Christianity. What I discovered much later, and might surprise some, is that the typicon of Constantinople and Hagia Sophia, used once to be very similar to that followed in Rome.

Bishop Seraphim of Chicago, +1987
I was received into the Orthodox Church on Dec. 22, 1963, which was the day after I turned 17. Shortly after that, I became an altar boy in Mahopac, where I served Vladyka Seraphim of Chicago and Detroit on his visits. I used to go there with an iconographer named Dimitri B. Alexandrow, who lived down what was then a country road from my childhood home, and who was also a neighbor from Mr. G. Tchaika, who gave me my first lessons in Russian pronunciation and conversation (and told me a little about the problems in the Russian Orthodox Church, where he had been kicked out of the choir and was insulted).

Mr. Alexandrow soon became Father Dimitri, and later on, Bishop Daniel of Erie. I learned a very great deal from him, and his advice and explanations set me on what I consider the straight path of Orthodoxy.

I had been received by chrismation, which in 1963 was the tradition in the Russian Church for accepting converts from Anglicanism. But a year and a half later, "Holy Transfiguration Monastery" in Brookline, Massachusetts, with its priestmonk Panteleimon, was received into ROCOR (by canonical transfer, which the Panteleimonites now deny). Very shortly after that, I began to be told that reception by Chrismation was "not strong enough", and that I was "still in my sins" and needed to be baptized.

Bishop Daniel of Erie, +2010
I was fortunate enough to be able to consult Fr. Dimitri Alexandrow about this, and he showed me conclusively, from the Canons, that this was not the truth, not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. That was very impressive for me, and just as Mr. Tchaika had let me know there were day-by-day troubles in the Church, so Fr. Dimitri showed me that there were ecclesiological troubles, caused, not by "True Orthodox", but by disobedient people who try to spread their own, ultra-strict, but false, teachings.

We had, at that time, a Western Rite diocese in France. In Mahopac, I was shown their illustrated book called in French, Nos Eglises en France. I soon found out that the Panteleimonites opposed this, on two grounds: that "one must be Byzantine to be Orthodox", and "the New Calendar [in those days, ROCOR permitted the use of the New Calendar in non-Russian communities] is a heresy".

I asked Father Dimitri what he thought of the Western rite. Is it Orthodox?  His reply was: Yes, it is indeed Orthodox, but the question that can be asked, is this the same Western rite that was used historically?

After the loss of the French diocese in 1967, due to the pressure they had come under following the repose of their protector, St. John Maximovitch, Fr. Dimitri was very critical of the way the group that stayed, was forced by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva [now reposed - Ed.], to change over to the Eastern Rite. But a year or less went by, before a new group of Western rite parishes (three) was accepted into ROCOR, at that time with the support of Fr. George Grabbe (who later came under the influence of the Panteleimonites, however).

Fr. Dimitri, his mother and I, went to a church in Connecticut that followed the Western rite, to see what it was like. But, while the actual text of the Mass or Liturgy was entirely correct and historical, there was no music -- due, I think, to the small number of people and to a lack of musical ability on those involved.

Fr. Dimitri, who was a learned medievalist and linguist, and active in the Old Rite, giving him a broader liturgical perspective, told me that this service should have been in Gregorian chant, and at least partly in Latin. He had lived in Switzerland, Austria and Germany, and had seen the old Mass as it was kept in those places in the 1940's and early 1950's.

This idea inspired me, because it made sense: this was what Orthodox worship had once been like, before the separation of the Western Church -- and wonderful as the Russian Church and Russian tradition are, not everyone was as able to adapt to them as I had been.

But if Orthodoxy is the True Faith, it can't be only for people of a certain cultural background, or with a linguistic and cultural flexibility: it had to be for everyone. Fr. Dimitri described the other "special Rites" in the Orthodox Church, such as that of the Old Believers or of the Syro-Chaldeans (whose bishop lived out his days in our Spring Valley convent of Novoe Diveevo). In 1965, there was also a plan to receive a group of former Syro-Jacobites (West Syrian tradition as opposed to East Syrian).

As the years went by, Fr. Dimitri, later Bishop Daniel, always encouraged me to study and to try to revive the Western Rite in the Orthodox Church.

Abp. Nikon (Rklitsky), +1976
Vladyka Seraphim of Chicago, whom I got to know while I was in high school and college, agreed entirely with Fr. Dimitri. So did Archbishop Nikon of blessed memory, who told me that Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky had been another big supporter of this idea. So were Bishop Alexander (Mileant), Bishop Mitrofan (Znosko-Borovsky) and others whom I respected and learned from.

I was rather taken aback, when in college I mentioned to one of my Russian professors a custom that exists in the Old Rite. Her immediate reaction was, "Whereas, what do the Orthodox do?" I was wasting my breath trying to tell her that the Old Rite was Orthodox.

I also recall a conversation I once had with Archbishop Ionafan Kopalovich [now reposed -Ed.], who was the Moscow Patriarchate administrator in New York City at the time of the autocephaly issue [resulting in the creation of the OCA - Ed.]. I said something to him about the Old Rite, and his reaction was that "The Old Rite is a heresy".

Was St. Sergius of Radonezh a heretic, then?

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'
Many of the same problems seem to come up whenever an unfamiliar church service is met with. A certain outspoken priest recently wrote, and I believe put on his website, that the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark are "not Orthodox".

But grasping the idea of "various typicons in the Church" is, as Patriarch Kyrill said in a private conversation with me at the Sobor in Moscow,* not only very Orthodox, but a key element in the education of future clergy. That was why he, himself, when he taught candidates for the priesthood, used to celebrate such rare Liturgies, and why he has continued to encourage me in this direction.

"There are 17 ways to do everything in the Orthodox Church", as one of our departed hierarchs was wont to say, "and 17 ways to do each of the 17 ways".

In Christ,
+Bishop Jerome

Note: Bishop Jerome is assistant to the Metropolitan for Western Rite communities in the canonical Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

* This appears to refer to the Sobor or Bishop's Council held at Moscow from Feb. 2 to Feb. 5, 2013. -Ed.

Thanks to Vladyka Jerome for his permission to reproduce this article here on Oremus blog.

Metr. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), +1936

On rt., Abp. St. John (Maximovitch), +1966;
on left, W. Rite Orthodox Bishop Jean-Nectaire (Kovalevsky)

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

New Doors for Chrisminster

from the Christminster website:

There is an old saying that when God closes one door, he always opens another. As the door closes on our 5–year history and stay in Hamilton, Ontario, we are happy to find new doors opening up to us. Friends of the monastery here and abroad have offered us several options for new locations. Among these is the offer from our good friend, Anglican Archbishop Peter Goodrich to move into the parsonage of his pro-cathedral in Niagara Falls, New York. Another offer, which for the time being must remain confidential, is for a church and living quarters in a large mid western city. A third option is the offer of a church and abandoned monastery with cemetery also in Niagara Falls, New York. We have also had an invitation from a monastic aspirant to explore the possibly of moving to Newfoundland. We ask your continued prayers for the wisdom to know which of these doors God wishes us to walk through. One earthly goal of the Benedictine life is peace, and it is in God’s will and not ours that true peace may be found.