"Unity" Oh No...You Did Not Use That Word!

Call for unity today and you might be accused of being an ecumenist. Call for unity today and you might get a message or a call from a monk, a priest, a bishop, or a blogger, expressing concern that while they have as their goal, the exposing of heretics, you are not representing their mission. But that's the problem, isn't it - that anyone should have as their goal, the exposing of heretics? Key word: goal.

Yes, we should point out heresies in order to accurately present the truth, however, with very few exceptions, the Orthodox dialogue via blogs, websites, chat forums, and the like, do not have, as their goal, what Christ said the goal should be: 

"Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one... My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

In case you are wondering, "complete unity', in the original Greek, means, "complete unity."

"To complete by reaching the intended goal."

The goal is to be unified, so that the world may believe that God the Father sent God the Son for the salvation of the world because he LOVES all of mankind. Why has this become a novel idea? Why are the blogs, websites, "open letters" diocesan communications, chat forums, void of this goal? Why is vitriol, accusation, contention and strife among us?

The popular mantra is that we are not to be unequally yoked, that we are not to fellowship with non-believers, not to pray with heretics-- yes, all this is true, but, is the promulgation of this our goal? Is it not enough just to believe and practice this piety without championing it - at the very least, let the Bishops contend with these things?

"I thank thee, oh God, that I am not like that sinner over there."

The goal is unity, so that we may be champions of the love of Christ. Let's start with this:

"Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building."

Few would argue that if one espouses another way to heaven other than Jesus Christ and Him crucified, then he is not Orthodox at all. Few would argue that if one innovates doctrines that were not believed by all the church at all times, then one is not Orthodox. Few would argue that in these cases these have become heretics and from such we should turn away, but, most of the jealousy and quarrels have little to do with the foundation doctrines of the faith. They are Paul and Apollos issues and it sounds something like this:

"Did this Bishop do this at this time and where and with whom and was the grace of God really on the bishops who ordained him because they were connected with that one over there at the time and we all know that that one over there was in communion with that other one so he was not authentic and the autonomy was received but it was by those that we are not sure of so that bishop or that monk or that guy is not really Orthodox and we are because we did not experience any of that and therefore are pure and holy and Orthodox and all others are not and though we are small in number, narrow is the way and few there be that find it and we did - find it - and they didn't and we are the remnant and they aren't and we are because they are not, so they are the enemies of the church and we can treat them worse than heathens because they are - heathens - and we are not, but they are..."

We, the Orthodox Church, are acting like infants. We are worldly. And the Holy Spirit is grieved. 

A Personal Reflection

At times, as I have observed this, I have asked myself, where is the love of Christ in all of this? Where is the gospel being presented to a dying world? It seems, the World Orthodox have more unity than do the "True Churches". One can argue that their unity is at the cost of true faith and practice, but there is no doubt, they have a greater structure of unity. Within a few years, the Roman Catholic Church and the World Orthodox Churches will be one unified body. 

Are the True Churches fiddling while Rome is creating an orchestra? 

Every Bishop of a True Orthodox Church, who shares a contempt for Ecumenism and a love of true doctrine and faith, should lay down his ecclesiastical sword, pick up his episcopal staff, get together in a very large room with all other Bishops, and forgive one another and forebear one another. Even if a Bishop is not authentic, in one's eyes, or a jurisdiction is spurious, in another's eyes, cannot the unity of the whole make right these things? Is this not what Jesus prayed for? We are losing the battle for the souls of men... and the message of sharing the LOVE of Christ is obscured. People from the outside are looking in. They are trying to find Christ, but they can't see him. In our disunity we have become islands unto ourselves. The isle of Paul. The isle of Apollos. People are drowning near our shore and we hesitate to send out a life-raft because we fear the riff raff that might climb on board. Here's a novel idea: How about spending as much time rescuing the lost as you do recusing the heretics?

Are we rescuers or recusers?

The Great Commission

"And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' "

This can and will only be accomplished in UNITY.

The Challenge
Bishops, do you know where your church is? Do you know what your people are blogging? Do you know that your clerics are arguing in public, not just with clerics from other jurisdictions but among themselves? Shepherd us! Tear your clothes in mourning! Lay down your pride and humble yourselves before one another. Stop typing, and get on a plane. Sit with your adversary face-to-face. You may find, by the grace of God, that the adversary was you, and that the barrier to Unity was you, not your brother, and at the core of it all - the devises of Satan, to thwart the UNITY of the church for which Jesus prayed. If you will be in unity, we will. If you won't, we surely can't.

When Ecumenism Is Not A Bad Word

In support of the Coptic people and the peace of Egypt. This is when ecumenism is not a bad word:

As for me, as an American, let me offer my deepest support for the healing of your nation and the ousting of those individuals and factions who would bring a satanic oppression under religious zealots. Let me also offer my sincere regret and apology that my government has had a role in the interference of the Egyptian people to govern their own lives as they see fit. Please know that the American government does not always represent the will of the American people. Like you, we stand against an ever increasing tyrannical government that oppresses its people and replaces liberty with dictates. Pray for us also.

Why We Consider It Impossible To Become A Part Of The Moscow Patriarchate

From The Sower  Vol. 1 Issue 5 

By Metropolitan Agafangel

(This article was first published in the journal «Трибуна русской мысли (Tribune of Russian Opinion)» no. 11, 2009.)

            The signing of the ‘Act of Canonical Communion’ between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was widely covered in the press.  This ‘Act’ that was signed in Moscow in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on May 17, 2007, was accepted by a large part of the ROCA.  It was evident already even then that there was a split in the Church Abroad due to the fact that not all of her representatives were in agreement, for they assessed it not as a unification, but as becoming a part of the Moscow Patriarchate, or being assimilated into it.  As a result, there was disagreement within the ROCA, and when the ‘Act’ was signed, I unfortunately was the only bishop who did not support this merger.  The union was rejected fully consciously by approximately 100 parishes (out of about 450 parishes in the ROCA at that time), 70 priests of our Church, and several thousand laypeople. 

           

The first question relating to what happened was whether this merger itself was indeed necessary, or could the ROCA have continued to exist in the state that she had been in for 83 years?  This question had come up repeatedly during the whole time of her existence, in essence, the question of whether the Church Abroad (like the Catacomb Church in the USSR) should have broken off ties with the deputy locum tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in 1927.

           

The question of separating from Metropolitan Sergius was settled by both the Councils and by the whole fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad based on two fundamental reasons:

            1) the illegality of usurping the upper echelons of power of the Russian Church

            2) the impossibility of making the entire flock of the Russian Church submit to the Soviet regime ‘not out of fear, but out of conscience’

           

These were the deciding factors, and it cannot be viewed as a mistake.  Subsequent questions are these – have the reasons which caused this separation been removed?  If so, should the Church Abroad become part of the MP, or should some other form of communion be established?  These questions continue to be open to discussion, and we are now looking for answers to these very questions.

            As we see it, the situation seems to be thus. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, considering herself part of the Local Russian Church, has never viewed the present Moscow Patriarchate as the Mother Church. The MP was established in 1943 by dictator Joseph Stalin with the aim of political gain, and was officially headed by the ideological section of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, by the so-called 'soviet patriarchs'.  The ROCA, along with the Catacomb Church (which many viewed as the Mother Church), considered the MP as one of the parts of the Local Russian Church, a part which willingly or unwillingly had fallen under the pressure and influence of the communist regime. The unification of these broken parts, in the opinion of all who had separated themselves from Metropolitan Sergius in Russia as well as those abroad, was possible only by a free All-Russia Local Council of the Russian Church.  Outside of such a unifying Council which would represent the highest authority of the national Russian Church, a genuine and legal (canonical) unification of all the parts of the Russian Church is not possible.  Without convening such a Council, we are not only not obliged to unite with the other parts of the Russian Church, but moreover, we do not have the canonical right to do so, since the parts of one Church can only be united by an authority higher than these parts, the Council.  There has not been such a Council to this day, through this whole sorrowful period of Church division.  Consequently, at this point, we cannot speak of the unification of the ROCA and the MP, but one part of the Church becoming a part of the other, and no more than this.

            Examples are often cited about the unification of parts of the Church which have occurred in the past history of other Local Churches.  During times of war, some churches were broken up because of the effects of the war, and they were united as soon as the reasons which forced their separation no longer existed.  However, in this case, those examples cannot be viewed as some sort of precedent, since the separation of those parts was not caused by any canonical or dogmatic claims, and their inner lives were not interfered with by a third party (as in this case, by the Soviet communist ideology).

            This is how we view the 'unification' which occurred in May of 2007.

            The Moscow Patriarchate, or, rather, her 'ideological' curators, unfortunately, has a different purpose in mind: to destroy all the other parts of the Russian Orthodox Church with the help of the government apparatus of the USSR (now the Russian Federation) and to declare the MP the de facto Mother Church.  This policy begun by Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) continues to this day with the active support of the authorities of the Russian Federation.

            Of course, I myself and my adherents still have various arguments upon which we base our position that it is impossible for us to become part of the MP.  The arguments are many, starting with the methods which were used to secure this union, and ending with the goals to which its organisers are striving.  Furthermore, the acting patriarch, from our point of view, is not the highest church authority, in that he does not head the Russian Church in all its fulness, but only a part of it.

            Definite answers need to be given to the questions concerning the division into parts, if we in deed, and not merely in word, strive for unity in Christ.  We will speak of this later.  But first, we will focus on the canonical (church-law) questions regarding this church division.

            It is known that throughout the entire history of the Church Abroad, beginning with her canonical legalization in 1921 at the Council of Sremskiye Karlovtsi in Serbia until the present, the question of the Russia Orthodox Church Abroad has always been a topic of interest for the communist USSR and its current successor, the Russian Federation.  The Soviet Union was established and existed on communist ideology, which was an ideology of intolerance.  This ideology was the foundation and cementing framework of the government.  The stability of the political system depended on this.  Dissidence and disloyalty were so harshly and persistently suppressed precisely because of this.  In Soviet times all the handbooks and textbooks portrayed the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad as a 'counter-revolutionary monarchist organization'.  Such a label implied a grave criminality in the eyes of the existing system of those days.  Therefore, the matter of 'neutralizing' the ROCA was always on the agenda in the USSR.  Civilian collaborators, who dealt only with this matter, worked in the Soviet KGB.  There was a propaganda department in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and in the Council of Ministers in the USSR and the KGB there was a Council of Religious Affairs with special subdivisions.  It is simply absurd to speak of a free confession of faith or freedom for the Church in those years.  Such was the background on which the events of the proposed unification unfolded.

            Because of my postion, I can testify that the unification was prepared clandestinely and over time.1  The groundwork was laid through by all manner of truths and falsehoods.  Strictly speaking, clergy and parishes involved in the 'unloyal' oppostion with regard to the MP were not forbidden to separate from the ROCA. Meetings with the leadership of the MP were conducted secretly, unbeknownst to the First Hierarch Metropolitan Vitaly and other bishops.  At the Clergy Conference of the ROCA in Nyack in 2003, they tried to push through a conciliary decision to establish eucharistic communion with the MP.  However, the Council was directly opposed to the organizers' intentions, saying that it was premature to establish such a communion without first coming to terms on major issues.  And this was despite the efforts of specially invited agitators from the MP, namely, Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov), and Protopriests Maxim Kozlov and George Mitrofanov.2

            The proponents of unification did not succeed at the subsequent Fourth All-Diaspora Conference in 2006 either, notwithstanding that this conference was prepared very painstakingly, and an agitator in support of the union was specially invited, the Serbian Metropolitan Amphilochius.  It should be noted that the representatives of our brothers in the Old Calendar Churches of Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria, with whom the ROCA established eucharistic communion in 1994 and who were not in favor of the union with the MP, were not invited to the conference.     

            The next meeting of the ROCA bishops also failed to take definitive action regarding the Act for canonical communion, and even at the meeting of the Synod of Bishops no consensus was reached on this matter, since two of the five members of the Synod were against the union.

            Nevertheless, the union took place against the full opinion of the ROCA and the Old Calendar Churches of Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria.  It is completely obvious that, just as in Soviet times, this was not a conciliar decision of the ROCA, but one that was forced on her.  This is why the subsequent schism occurred in the ROCA, since many people saw canonical and procedural violations in the 'unification' process.  Besides that, the people who did not agree assessed it as an act carried out by a group of 'conspirators for unification' in which case their decision was not a binding one.  Although the majority of parishes in the ROCA accepted the union anyway, this is not an argument in favor of pro-union, since many went with the unification against their will, due to materialistic considerations and the 'human' factor.  If one takes into account those parishes which separated themselves from the ROCA before May 17, 2007, then it is apparent that those who accepted the union are rather a minority.

            Advocates for the union cannot dispute what we have said, except to say that we are all supposed to follow the Synod and the First Hierarch.  However, these people intentionally 'forget' that the supreme authority of the ROCA is not the Synod and First Hierarch, but the Hierarchal and All-Diaspora Councils (and for the Russian Orthodox Church the local Council by the ruling of the Council of 1918).  This pertains to the canonical aspect of this question.

            Now a few words about the questions regarding the separation, that is, the reasons why we consider it impossible at this time to unite with the MP.  As before, there are two reasons: ecumenism and sergianism.

            The representatives of the Church Abroad, the old calendar churches , and even the MP have said much about ecumenism.  There is extensive literature on this topic, and those who wish to clarify this question for themselves can refer to these sources.  I would like to offer just one analogy, maybe not the most discrete for some.  We all know that there is a sin called fornication.  In the sacrament of matrimony, the legal union of man and wife is blessed, and all relationships outside of this union are a mortal sin.  As the Apostle Paul wrote, the fornicator becomes one flesh with the whore.  This refers to fornication in the physical sense.  However, since man consists of body and soul, there can also be spiritual fornication.  In my opinion, ecumenism is exactly that spiritual fornication where a 'copulation of souls' occurs during the common prayers outside of the martimonial union of Christ and the Church.  I am convinced that this is far from mere speculation – this is a real, mortal sin for all who take part in it.

            The question of sergianism is quite a bit more complex.  At least, it is clear that this question is directly related to the antichrist.  It is more difficult to see the heresy inherent in it, but the antichrist himself will not appear in the form of a heretic.  Heretics confess their own sort of Christ who is not the Christ confessed by the Sacred Traditions of the Orthodox Church.  The antichrist will reject Christ outright.  I am deeply convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church has already lived through the age of antichrist.  This was the time of the building of communism.  The coming of the antichrist, or rather, his precursors – «a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns» (Rev. 12:3) – the seven main communist leaders, turned the Russian empire into a completely new state, the USSR.  And the Russian Church was divided into three parts at that time: the Church Abroad, which fled from the antichrist outside of his earthly borders, the Catacomb Church, which fled from him into the «clefts of the earth», and the Moscow Patriarchate, who bowed down to this red dragon.

            The Revelations of Apostle John witnesses to the seven-headed beast, that one of his heads received a fatal blow, «and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.» (Rev. 13:3)  Is this not like the communist system which against all odds did not die, but continues to exist concealed in the current leadership of the Russian Federation?  As the text of Revelations explains, the apocalyptic beast with seven heads is the precursor of the antichrist of the world, a beast who «had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.  And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.» (Rev. 13:11-12).  It turns out that the coming antichrist of the world will take the example of the atheistic soviet regime.   

            However, the most frightful thing for all of us is the fact that neither the Russian people, nor the MP, nor the people of the other post-Soviet republics have gained any spiritual experience from the godless period.  This self-justification can definitively destroy all hope of the rebirth of Russia.  The unrepented sin of having bowed down to the theomachist and apostate powers (that is, antichrist), which we call sergianism, continues to hang over the Moscow Patriarchate to this day.  This sin should have been repented of in the local Council, otherwise all declarations concerning the subject of sergianism remain merely personal opinions of those making the declarations.  Repentance of the sin of sergianism is important for the understanding of the position of the Church of Christ during the recent times of antichrist.  In the opinion of many of the new martyrs and also of the majority of the fathers of the Church Abroad, genuine spiritual freedom of the Church is impossible without repenting of sergianism.  Consequently, the spiritual  rebirth of Russia is also impossible, as well as any opposition to the coming antichrist.  The absence of understanding of the nature of this question even results in the appearance in Russia of «Orthodox Stalinists» (which in my mind is the same as «Orthodox Satanists»).  The hidden stamp of 'Soviet-ness' is equivalent to the stamp of antichrist, which was openly and proudly worn as a red pentagram (red star) by the Soviet military on their caps.  Now, after the fall of the communist regime, the 'pentagram' worship for the Soviet past is invisibly present in the souls of post-Soviet people, even among those considering themselves Russian and Orthodox.  This is just my personal conviction and I have no pretenses to complete objectivity.  I would be glad to be proven wrong in my opinion.  Unfortunately, however, as time goes on, the more I am convinced that it is correct.

            Ecumenism and sergianism are by far the major points of contention and the clearest testimonies to the division between Russia abroad and Soviet Russia.  Soviet Russia has not and cannot become Orthodox Russia without genuine repentance.  In contemporary Russia, as in the former USSR, everything is interwoven into one whole – politics, religion, business, and criminal activity.  In order to maintain this conglomerate, a huge apparatus has been created which, like an octopus, has grabbed the whole body of the Russian government with its tentacles.  Such a system continues to give rise to and reinforces a certain kind of mentality.

            At this point, it is worth pointing out specifically the differences in mentality of those who lived abroad during the rule of the theomachist regime, and of those who remained in the communist USSR.

            Characteristically, the Orthodox people 'abroad' inherited from 'imperial' times an integrated and free personality, as well as consistency in their views.  While with 'Soviet' people, the personality, as a rule, was destroyed, and their views and world-outlook became changeable as a result of the close and protracted contact with the communist system.  It is even possible to say that the major trait of people who lived through the era of theomachism was that their personalities were broken down by Soviet totalitarianism.  It is well-known that from the very beginning of Lenin's seizing power, he insisted on mercilessly crushing any form of opposition to the new dictatorship.  In order to hold onto power, the intention was to break the people through cultivating class hatred, the red terror, confiscation of valuables, creating artificial hunger, and requisitioning farm produce. These all served that end.  I am convinced that the truly diabolical idea of Lenin, to break the people, always lay at the very foundation of the atheistic government that he and his people established.  We can ascertain with bitterness that the theomachists attained their goal.  This breaking down penetrated the Soviet person so deeply, reaching even the 'genetic' level of his soul.  Sad to say, this attribute of a person, like an infectious disease, is able to be passed down to their offspring, the post-Soviet people.  By my observations, the infectiousness of this sickness is so great, that the integrity of a person living and educated abroad, even though he was not born in the USSR, can be destroyed through close contact with bearers of this infection.  Evidence of this are the many and astonishing metamorphases of whole ranks of people abroad, including prominent clergy, whose names are well-known, during the time of the discussions relating to the unification of the churches.  It was not just a question of fear over losing one's diocese or church.  Fear is just an external factor that leads to an internal change in the person.  The change in their world-view and what happened to them was an amazing transformation.  I understand that people have various opinions about what exactly happened to those people who so drastically changed their views.  I naturally have my own opinion regarding the changes in these people – it is not hard to guess what kind of opinion.  Meanwhile, nothing has really changed in the country itself since the days when these people were stalwart opponents to unification.

            We can compare two individuals Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov) and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) as vivid examples of a person's conduct in the framework of a totalitarian theomachist regime while under the conditions of growing globalism. Metropolitan Kirill was indisputably one of the more highly respected hierarchs of the Russian Church in the last century.  He was designated by Patriarch Tikhon in his Patriarchal testament as his successor, making him the primary candidate for the Patriarchal throne.  He was also chosen by the bishops of the Russian Church to be patriarch according to a written referendum carried out secretly in 1926.  It is not an insignificant fact attesting to his authority that the Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt willed that his funeral be performed by the then Bishop Kirill.  Recognizing his high reputation among church people, the Soviet government, through their spokesman Tuchkov, offered the Patriarchate to him numerous times, but with certain concessions to it.  However, Metropolitan Kirill, being full of integrity, could not allow any kind of compromise in his faith and conscience, and without thinking twice about it accepted hard labor and death, refusing the deceitful temptation to save the Church with the help of the Soviet government.  For me, personally, he is a great example of an Orthodox person, and I have no doubt that he is truly one of those whose name is written in 'the book of life'.  The opposite example is shown by Metropolian Sergius (Stragorodsky) whose personal history consists of indecisiveness and compromise.  Starting with siding with the renovationists, and ending with serving the Soviet regime 'not out of fear, but out of conscience', the breaking of his person and, as a result, the tragedy of his person, makes an impression.  Of course, he was not the only one, but considering his importance and the role he played in the history of the Russian Church, in my eyes he can be called a representative of an already new generation of hierarchs, the first representative of a truly 'Soviet hierarch'.  He became an example by his 'image and likeness', a pattern for all subsequent bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, albeit with the addition of more and more 'loyalty'.

            I think that no one can argue that in the USSR people were deliberately selected based on ideology.  In the closed environment of a communist government, it is impossible to escape the rigged selection which is carried out intentionally.  It was impossible to be outside the sphere of Soviet ideology, not to be affected by contact with one's surroundings, through the media, impossible to escape the all-seeing eyes which were quick to detect any ideological enemies of the Soviet man.  In the USSR, it was impossible to live 'unbroken'.  (People who had views like Metropolitan Kirill were, without a doubt, doomed to be eliminated by the theomachist regime.)  Still, the regime put up with the 'broken' somehow.3  The totalitarian system forced the conscience of those living there to constantly seek ways to compromise.  The majority of those who could not find compromises perished in the GULAGs, or simply died out in the suffocating atmosphere of 'Soviet life'.  Even a personality like MP priest Dimitri Dudko could not stand his ground.  Under the pressure of the KGB, he was turned from an opponent to an admirer of Stalin.  Even in some official biographies of some highly-placed bishops of the MP, there are those whose parents and even they themselves who in their youth belonged to the Catacomb Church.  Naturally, their biographies fail to mention how their world-outlook changed so drastically. Well-known clergy and laity 'voluntarily' renounced God.  I do not want to mention here the names of famous scientists and even academicians who started as theologians and ended up as 'representatives of Soviet science and culture'. 

            There is one more vital characteristic of people living in the USSR which makes them different from those who grew up and were educated abroad.  With Soviet and post-Soviet people, almost to a man, their historic roots have been wiped out.  It was not proper to remember and commemorate one's ancestors.

            In this regard, the ROCA has been, and continues to be, a small island of Russian people not having undergone ideological selection.  This is the only untouched remainder of Old Russia.  Therefore, I believe that the spiritual rebirth of Russia is possible only on the foundation of this healthy part of the Russian people.  I believe we should be firmly convinced of this while it is not too late and there are still living representatives of this Old Russia.

            The Moscow Patriarchate has a great opportunity to preach Orthodoxy.  But the main problems are directly related to her Orthodoxy itself.  Calling upon the members of the Patriarchate to work actively to restore health to Russian society, Patriarch Kirill works from the assumption that all is well in the MP itself.  The first order of business should be to establish health within.  (This applies, of course, not only to the MP.)  Otherwise, what kind of morality can be taught to the Russian people by heretic-ecumenists, sodomites, fornicators, and money-grubbers, who are widely planted by the Department for Religious Affairs of the former USSR in the 'Soviet church' with the sole aim of spreading distrust among the Russian people towards representatives of 'religion'.  Even that half-political ideology, which instead of Orthodoxy, is being preached in word and deed by its major spokesmen is not getting the widespread response expected now by the current Russian leadership.  It is already even awkward to expect a response, seeing that too many people consider the mission of the Moscow Patriarchate, within the country, as well as outside of her borders, as a political order directed towards holding power (in full accord with sergianist dogma).  This mission is definitely not viewed as a call to preach to the Russian people Christ Crucified, Who redeemed us for eternity.  It is not difficult to give a prognosis to this situation which is analogous to that which existed in the USSR – a 'political Orthodoxy' taking the form of state ideology which will ultimately end in opposition, much of which will be justifiable.  We see this happening already.

            Believing in the possibility of salvation within the Russian Church Abroad and exclusively in Her, based on our hope in salvation, we continue to preserve the existence of our Church in the way it came to us from our fathers, considering it to be our spiritual heritage and the tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.  For this reason, in the two years since the moment of the signing of the union, nothing at all has changed in the 'Notification' which I sent to our Synod on the very day of the signing of the «Act of Canonical Communion» in the Church of Christ the Savior:

            «In connection with what has occurred on the Feast of the Ascension of the Lord, the entry of part of the ROCA, including the current First Hierarch and members of the Synod, into the Moscow Patriarchate, I must inform my flock as well as all the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of the following:

            Insofar as the repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate for the sins of sergianism and ecumenism hoped for by our whole Church is lacking to this day, I find it premature to establish between us eucharistic and administrative unity.  I also find it inadmissible to renounce the spiritual heritage of the Church Abroad which in my conviction cannot be preserved in all its fulness under the conditions set forth in the 'Act of Canonical Communion'.  

            For this reason, I hold fast to the previous Status of the ROCA until a genuine resolution occurs of the questions crucial for our whole Church.  I will continue to regard all decrees and other instructions coming from the church powers of the Moscow Patriarchate in any situation as being canonically invalid.»

           

In conclusion, I would like to say that I continue to pray for the unity of the Russian Church, but for a unity in Truth, and not a political compromise which of itself cannot be a result or expression of the spiritual condition of Russian Orthodoxy.  I sincerely believe that the spiritual greatness of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has not lost its significance to this day, both in its entirety, as well as for the possibility of the spiritual rebirth of Orthodox Russia.

Footnotes

1)  For example, a draft of a resolution compiled by the special commission dealing with dialogue with the MP was illegally added to the resolutions of the Council of Bishops of the ROCA in 1996.  This particular draft of the resolution had in fact been rejected; however, Archbishop Mark, head of this commision, referred to this unaccepted resolution as evidence of the ROCA's striving for union with the MP in an extensive interview with a Russian newspaper.

2)  Archimandrite Tikhon declared at that time from the podium without 'batting an eye' that Patriarch Alexis had never cooperated with the KGB, deeply disturbing the participants of the conference with his peremptory confidence, since everyone knew the facts to be to the contrary.

3) In connection with this, I remember a story told by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) about how an investigator at an interrogation said to him something like, «Who do you think you are, little boy?  You are nothing – we broke Voino-Yasnetsky.»  It is well-known that Bishop Luke was formerly a bishop of the Catacomb Church.

   
[Thanks to: Joanna Higginbotham]

A Suffering (ROCOR/MP) Monk

From Monk Theophan of Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville

October 2/15/, 2010

This letter is a concerned voice from a soul who has always belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR).

In 2001, the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR stated in an Epistle that,

"During these days of universal apostasy, which, through the pan- heresy of ecumenism, has even infected most of the Local Orthodox Churches, we must stand united, that the enemy of our salvation may not use our divisions to destroy the voice of our confession in the homeland and the diaspora." [1]

Sadly enough this voice of confession is not heard anymore. Instead, ROCOR/MP moves closer and closer toward the ecumenical Orthodox hierarchs and clergy, while rejecting the True Orthodox Christians, with whom we once confessed our unity. We promised to defend the Truth, but who reached out to support Vladyka Diomid in his lonely fight for the Truth? Who spoke up against the un-Christian World Summit of Religious Leaders in Moscow in 2006? Why are our spiritual leaders silent?

It is well-known that the Moscow Patriarchate together with World Orthodoxy participates in the ecumenical movement. It is also well-known that the Moscow Patriarchate still believes in the salvific act of the Declaration of 1927. And still our hierarchs state that ROCOR, under His Eminence Metropolitan Agafangel, together with all other True Orthodox Churches, who have walled themselves off "during these days of universal apostasy" are outside the Church and their sacraments invalid. How can this be when we ourselves just recently confessed our unity with them?

We are canonical and in the Church. That is our main argument. And yet, the soul is in dire agony, feeling that something is completely wrong. Fr. Seraphim Rose explains it the following way:

"The apostasy of our times, to a degree unique in Christian history, is proceeding not primarily by false teachings or canonical deviations, but rather by a false understanding of Orthodoxy on the part of those who may even be perfectly Orthodox in their dogmatic teaching and canonical situation. A correct ‘Orthodoxy’ deprived of the spirit of true Christianity - this is the meaning of Sergianism, and it cannot be fought by calling it a ‘heresy,’ which it is not, nor by detailing its canonical irregularities, which are only incidental to something much more important." [2]

Obviously, apostasy is not only a deviation from the canons, but first of all a deviation from the spirit of Orthodoxy. Besides the example of Sergianism, one can also mention the New Calendar. Neither of these two can, strictly speaking, be considered heresies. And yet, we know very well the damage they have both caused the Orthodox Church. Canonicity and apostasy can and do, therefore, easily go hand in hand.

Today obedience is no longer understood as a God-pleasing obedience to Christ and His Church, but rather as a complete submission to Church authority, regardless of its teaching. Salvation is no longer attained by following the conscience of the Church of Christ and one`s own conscience, but by blind obedience to the official Church authorities. To be, not in the Church of Christ, but in today`s World Orthodoxy, has become the absolute criterion for salvation. 

These Church authorities are, therefore, not interested in believers who follow their conscience according to the conscience of the Church. We are not only asked not to think, but made not to think.

In the Church of Christ, though, there can be no violence on the conscience. Such violence breaks people morally and creates a spiritual apathy, depriving them of the ability to freely and truly follow Christ. Every Christian must follow his conscience, should it be even unto death. One, though, must do so in a truly Orthodox manner with Christian love, humility and moderation.

We must try to understand that most of the believers, who are not following World Orthodoxy, are acting by their own conscience and the conscience of the Church. Seeing that World Orthodoxy does not have the correct and saving confession of the faith, many sober and pious faithful have walled themselves off not from the Church of Christ but from apostasy. The Old Calendar Movement is therefore not a heresy, neither is it a schism, but a walling off from falsehood.

Having accepted the position of the official Church leaders of the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy, together with their spirit of apostasy and conformism, the spiritual leaders of ROCOR/MP have not only compromised themselves in the saddest way, but have also deeply disappointed many of its faithful, as well as many of our pious brothers and sisters inside the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy itself, who expected to see this Champion of Truth courageously expose all falsehood. The pain of witnessing this fall is intensified even more when one is asked to accept it as a glorious victory. The tragedy of ROCOR/MP, therefore, is not so much its formal union with the Moscow Patriarchate and World Orthodoxy, but its wholehearted acceptance of their path and spirit.

If our Christian life is to be truly pleasing to God, both a Christian loving heart and a true confession of Faith must be present. It is not only a question of where, but also of how one confesses his faith. Without a Christian loving and humble heart, one`s "confession of Faith" will have no justification in the eyes of God, but will only harm oneself and the sacred unity of the Church. On the other hand, if we reject the salvific Truths, Traditions and spirit of the Church, or perhaps just indifferently follow along, then that will equally endanger our salvation. Both extremes lack the "spirit of true Christianity" - the divine Love of God ̶ and should be avoided. Apostasy, therefore, is simply the deviation from the Royal Path of Christian love towards God and man manifested in heresies and the lack of the spirit of true Christianity.

We observe that World Orthodoxy is getting more and more infected by "the pan-heresy of ecumenism," estranging itself from the spirit of Christianity, while preserving the outward forms of the Church. This has been prophesied by the Holy Fathers and Holy Scripture and the process began a long time ago. That is why many pious Orthodox Christians are quietly stepping aside, in order to protect themselves. Many faithful in World Orthodoxy itself are also slowly beginning to lose patience.

This letter is a concerned and quiet voice. Such voices, though, are labeled as proud, rebellious and full of self-deceit.

World Orthodoxy has taken its course. It is a course based on the wide path of love for this world. It is not the narrow path of the Cross and it is not a path which should be followed.

Monk Theophan Holy Trinity Monastery

Jordanville, NY USA Ss Cyprian and Justina, October 2/15, 2010.

[1] Living Orthodoxy, Epistle of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2001. #126, vol.XXI # 6, p.26, left column, last par., line 5. [2] Andreyev Ivan: “Russia`s Catacomb Saints, Lives of the New Martyrs”. Saint Herman of Alaska Press, Platina, California, 1982, p. 257, par. 2.

Bartholomew Endorses Muslim Religion as God-Blessed

So, you still don't believe there is anything called World Orthodoxy, Ecumenism, or a movement toward a One World Church?  If your diocese, jurisdiction, or bishop is in communion with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew then this is what you believe:

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew issues message for the End of Ramadan
Istanbul, Turkey
9/21/2009
It is with feelings of love and respect that we convey to all Muslims around the world our heartfelt congratulations and best wishes upon the occasion of the end of Ramadan.

After this extended period of fasting, which has also been a time of reflection, prayer and almsgiving, the time has come for each to celebrate their labor and receive their just reward from above.

In the spirit of peace, love and understanding we wish you once again a blessed celebration, praying that God Almighty grant you every spiritual blessing from above in the hopes that the world may live as one.

At the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 7th of September 2009

Your fervent supplicant before God,

+ BARTHOLOMEW
Archbishop of Constantinople,
New Rome and Ecumenical PatriarchIstanbul, Turkey

Ask your priest this Sunday if
1. he thinks it is fine to offer best wishes to a heretical Christ-hating religion...
2. he encourages heretics to celebrate their actions and expect to receive "just rewards from above"...
3. he also prays that God will grant heretics "every spiritual blessing from above"...

If your priest does not think, encourage or pray in this way, ask him why he or your church is in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople who does. While you are at it, you might ask him why there were representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church concelebrating with the Pope at his mass recently. But, it doesn't really matter. According to all SCOBA members, by their participation in the World Council of Churches and the UN religious unity movement, all religions are equal paths to God. So just pick one.

Read: Why We Left...Where We Went...

Do Orthodox And Baptists Have A "Similarity of Beliefs"?

A Response to a Commenter

of

"Why We Left...Where We Went..."

Concerning the question of the "Similarity of Beliefs" between Orthodox and Baptists

"Are we to be ortho-dox or homoios-dox- right believers or similar believers"?

John,

Thank you for your conversation, questions and contrite heart. I didn't take offense at your first comment and was particularly blessed by your second comment, especially where you said, "You took the time to let everyone know of you're reasons for leaving to fulfill any curiosities or wondering, and I took it as a theological attack on the church." You have well understood my intent and have received with love the core of my heart. I can only hope that others will as well, though I am realistic in that hope. The ability to discuss things of the faith without focusing on personal indictment is a sign of spiritual maturity. Also, that you are still in your teens is a testimony of your faith and a statement of the quality of your parents whom I know and respect.

I have been working on addressing the subject of baptism or our lack thereof, for a while. The issue surrounds the fact that we were received into this local Antiochian church through Chrismation alone, our Southern Baptist baptism by single immersion being deemed valid. While my reply here is not intended to be a thorough theological treatment, it at least sheds light on inherent problems with the current convoluted practice of the Antiochians and other jurisdictions that have been influenced by Ecumenism.

Your priest seems to be paraphrasing St. Vincent of Lerins (5th Century)-that which is held "everywhere, always, by all". Since the fact and mode of baptism by triple immersion is Vincentesque, then it behooves opponents of this requirement to produce evidence as to when ALL the church decided to alter that which is clearly established throughout history and the Apostolic Canons. It is feeble indeed to site the few seeming exceptions to the rule to validate the mass acceptance into the Church of the heterodox without administering the Sacrament of Baptism. In any case, Canon 95 specifically denounces single immersion baptism and requires baptism. Perhaps this is why your priest says the Canons are confusing? How can he reconcile that his Metropolitan Philip received so many into the faith without baptism, including him, when the Canons forbid it? He would have to believe that either the Canon does not mean what it says or is taken out of context, or it has been made irrelevant by way of the Heresy of Ecumenism, or that he, himself, has not been baptized. Thus, his exhortation, “don’t read these, it will only confuse you.” I have read them and I am not confused as to their content. The only confusion is in the wondering how so many blindly accept the Heresy of Ecumenism and fail to recognize its influence on their belief structure. Goodness, John, the Calvinists are not even confused about what Orthodox believe and practice regarding baptism!

“The Puritan Board (Calvanist Theological Discussion site)

The Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8. Cyril of Jerusalem claimed that Christ's mode of baptism was a three-fold descent into the water, Catechetical Lectures, Chapter 20, 4. Basil of Caesarea references a three-fold immersion as the mode of Baptism in Letter 236, 5, and On the Holy Spirit, chapter 15, 35. This mode of baptism has an ancient precedent in the early church, and particularly among the eastern Church fathers, hence the precedent for Eastern Orthodoxy today.”

The website from your own church illustrates the ecumenical ambiguity and subjectivity that has resulted in the watering down of the Faith of our Fathers as they link to this article which says,

The Procedure for becoming a member of the Orthodox Church

After the period of instruction, there is a Service of Reception into the Church. If you are converting from a non-Christian religion, you will make a profession of Faith, be baptized and chrismated. If you are being received from a Church which has a similarity of beliefs with Orthodoxy and you have been properly baptized and confirmed, you will participate in a brief Service of Anointing (Chrismation) which signifies reconciliation with the Orthodox Church. The reception of Holy Communion is always seen as the consummation of union with the Church.

“Similarity of beliefs"? So, when did the ONE Church decide this "Similarity Rule" and who gets to determine what is similar enough? When was this idea accepted "everywhere, always, by all"? Can one not see how convoluted, inconsistent and unOrthodox this ideology is? Is this subjective method of determining what is Orthodox not a page right out of the Protestant playbook? To accept Heterodox or nonOrthodox Baptisms because there are similarity of beliefs is as nonsensical as the Billy Crystal/Miracle Max quote from the movie, The Princess Bride,

“It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead….Now mostly dead is slightly alive. Now, all dead? With all dead there’s usually only one thing that you could do…go through his clothes and look for loose change.”

So, are SBs just "mostly dead" and "slightly alive"? So, one does not have to believe the whole truth to be valid, just have some slight truth, thus a "similarity of beliefs"? So, truth is not absolute anymore? This ecumenical concept makes the very meaning of the word, “orthodox” (right belief) void. In actuality we become "homoiosdox" (similar belief). But considering the idea of homoiosdoxy, how is it that the Southern Baptists (SBs) are similar enough to Orthodoxy to have their baptisms endorsed? Yes, Baptists believe in the Triune God but James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, puts this idea of "similarity" in perspective,

"You believe in the one God-that is credible enough,

but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear."

So the SBs belief in the triune God is credible, believing the proper mode of baptism is by immersion is credible, but so are the demons "credible" in those regards. The inference is that there are dissimilarities that make the similarities meaningless and void of the power and grace of God. Even so, let's look at the question "Do Orthodox and Baptists have a "Similarity of Beliefs".

Are There Similarity of Beliefs Regarding Holy Orders?

The Southern Baptist baptizing agent (a pastor or layman) has not received the sacrament of Holy Orders in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, therefore, where is his apostolic authority to baptize to begin with? Yes, something similar to, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, is said by the agent, but how can such a SB agent pronounce the blessing or administer a sacrament of the Church which he does not represent? The SBs have a Congregational Ecclessiology. There is no apostolic succession, no hierarchy and each local church is completely autonomous having been founded by an individual or individuals. Where is the Bishop? There is none. The pastor is generally the operational authority, but he can be removed by a vote of the people.

Are There Similarity of Beliefs Regarding Single Immersion?

The SB immerses the convert only once. This is NOT Trinitarian and the Fathers refer derogatorily to this practice as a “Baptism only unto Death”. The Orthodox belief is that the mode of Trinitarian Baptism constitutes three parts, The

Death (Immerse),

Burial (Immerse),

Resurrection. (Immerse).

Have you ever seen a person, infant or adult, baptized in the Orthodox Church by single immersion? No. So, how is it that such a baptism outside the Orthodox Church is acceptable? If a person were to request a single immersion baptism from an Orthodox priest they would be turned down with an explanation as to the tradition and purpose of the triple immersion. Why doesn't the same explanation apply to the convert who has been immersed only once? Why is their baptism acceptable? Something is ecumenically amiss! Ecumenism has allowed the redefining of “Trinitarian Baptism” to simply mean, if the agent of the baptism orally says (redundant for the purpose of clarity) the words “In the name of the Trinity”. Thus the Ecumenist asks, “Were you baptized in the “Name of the Trinity”? ”Why, yes, I was.” “Come on in your water is fine.”

John, your own priest has stated that he “always asks whether or not someone has been baptized by triple immersion”. Why is this, John, if it is of no matter and all you have to be is “similarly” baptized? Can you go any further in this query with this question not being answered? Does not such an inconsistency require an Orthodox explanation?

Watch a Baptist Baptism. Listen to the Pastor Mock The Saving Sacramental Value

How Is The SB Baptism Similar If It Is Not Salvific?

The SB baptism is symbolic only. SB pastors not only stand opposed to the salvific nature of Baptism but many make a direct statement denouncing the historical and Orthodox salvific nature. Statements such as "there is no power in these waters" and the more sarcastic, "baptism doesn't have any magical saving power" are common in the mini sermonettes that proceed the Baptismal Service. So, is the SB baptism still considered a valid baptism simply because it is similar? Since the Orthodox believe that “baptism now saves you” and that original sin is washed away at the moment of baptism, did this happen in the moment I was baptized by the SBs? If so, would we not have to deduce that SB's baptism is sacramental and effective? If so, why become Orthodox? If not, and a “brief Service of Anointing” as your church and others propose, makes the SB baptism legitimate, then what was my spiritual state for the 48 years between my SB baptism and Chrismation? What if I had not become Orthodox after that limbo period? Would this not make the SB baptism invalid when it happens but valid if I became Orthodox later? Is my salvation suspended in time? Since the SB baptism contains no rite of exorcism from demons, that historically accompanies Orthodox baptism, is the demonic influence still with me for the 48 years? Am I to surmise that I was only "mostly dead"? It was either a baptism or it was not. The Canons (see below) say IT WAS NOT.

Are There Similarity of Beliefs Regarding Salvation?

The SBs believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. This is credible. In this they are more Orthodox than some of the apostate World Orthodox Hierarchy of the World Council of Churches (See Why We Left… Where We Went…) The SB's definition of how salvation is obtained, however, is not similar. SBs believe salvation is obtained through confession, by grace, through faith alone. A SB believes that if he confesses with his mouth that Jesus is Lord, he is saved and the Holy Spirit “comes in” at that instant. There is no chrismation administered as the concept of Holy Oil is foreign to the SB paradigm. That oral confession, "truly intended", is the whole of salvation for salvation is an experience not a process. If, at one moment in time this is done, then eternal salvation instantly occurs and cannot be revoked by either God or the confessor. If one does renounce his faith later and turns from God, then a convenient Southern Baptist explanation kicks in, “Well, they were never really saved to begin with.” Orthodox know that “he who endures to the end” will be saved and that the beginning of salvation is in the waters of baptism. Although confession through faith is a part of salvation, Orthodox know that it is only a part. While SBs laud the importance of righteous works they allow no concept that a man’s works have anything to do with obtaining or keeping his salvation. They change the concept of salvation by grace to salvation by grace alone. Their champion, Martin Luther, even added the word ”alone” to his translation of the scriptures. So is any of this similar enough to Orthodoxy?

Are There Similarity of Beliefs Regarding Eucharist?

What about the Eucharist? The SB believes that there is no real presence of Christ in the elements and that the “Lord’s Supper”, as they call it, is not sacramental but only symbolic.The word "Eucharist" is foreign in the Baptist culture. Grape juice (Welch's Brand when I was growing up) and unleavened crackers are used. Is this similar to Orthodoxy? In fact there are NO sacraments in the Southern Baptist Church. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered “Ordinances” and they are void of any power. How similar are the beliefs, here?

Is The Orthodox Canon Of Scripture And The SB Canon Of Scripture Similar?

The Orthodox use the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, translated in Greek by The 70. The SBs do not. The Orthodox accept as inspired the Apocryphal Books and even though the original King James version of the SB's included them, the SBs use a version where these books have been removed. So, the Protestant version of the Bible that they use is minus 12 or so books and uses the Hebrew translation that has had the messianic elements of Christ dumbed down. Granted, the versions are similar, but where they differ, they differ greatly.

Is The SB Concept of "Alien Immersion" Similar?

Consider the SB concept called “alien immersion”. Since SBs consider themselves THE "True New Testament Church" anyone, even another Protestant, who wants to become a Baptist, must be baptized as a Baptist, their prior baptism being "alien". Thus the Convert’s baptism via a group that is not of “like faith and order”, a SB phrase often used, is an “alien immersion”. Actually, the "like" or "same" concept may be Orthodox but the repositioning of the SBs as the authentic agent or foundation of truth is not. The ecumenical Orthodox proponents of the "Similar" ideology would practice a watered down version of "like faith and order". They are satisfied with a "similar faith and order" or "kind-of-like faith and order". Credit must be given to the SBs for adhering to what they believe and not accepting as valid anything outside their tenants of faith. In fact, SBs denounce the Orthodox as a heretical cult or sect and teach their people how to "witness" to the Eastern Orthodox believer by issuing their official documents, "Witnessing to People Of Eastern Orthodox Background-Turning Barriers of Belief Into Bridges of Personal Faith", and their Interfaith Evangelism Belief Bulletin-Eastern Orthodox, both of which fallaciously attempt to discount the very foundations of the faith of our fathers. Do the Orthodox agree with this stance? If this is similar enough, then again, I could have just remained a Baptist. There are volumes of other dissimilar SB doctrines and practices, but since there are some similarities, their baptism is acceptable? Please forgive, but with this criteria one could be baptized by a demon because the demon has a "similarity of beliefs". Demons know and believe all the truth but are they the church? No. SBs believe only some of the truth but are they the church? No. In Orthodoxy, belief is not the sole standard for truth. Truth is ineffective unless it is sacramentally applied. Then it becomes authentic with the grace and power of God. The fullness of the authentic sacramental grace and power of God is contained in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church- the Orthodox Church. Have they who claim that similarity of belief is enough, forgotten this basic, Orthodox principle? They have made the concept of Apostolic doctrines and succession null and void. "Come on in your water is fine."

John, your priest once told me, "There are voices within the Orthodox Church that state that no baptism outside the Orthodox Church is valid". With this I wholeheartedly agree, but who are these voices? They are the voices of the Apostles, the voices of the Fathers, the voice of the Scripture, THE VOICE OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH! One of the most common reasons given for receiving SB converts by way of Chrismation rather than baptism is that the Church has the authority to do so, therefore it is okay. But, has the WHOLE Church said it is okay, "Everywhere, always, by all"? NO. Unfortunately, many of these Ecumenist World Orthodox, of which Antioch is a part, use only the last 50 years as their frame of reference to determine what is the correct practice and doctrine, i.e. "Don't look at these. They will only confuse you." This also is why your Antiochian Patriarch Ignatius can make an independent decision to commune with Monophysites contrary to the determination of four prior Church Councils. This is why you worship by a New Calender innovation that before 50 years ago was unconscionable and strongly universally condemned by the WHOLE church. These things are brought about by a progressive Ecumenical influence. Thus in regards to baptism, you must look prior to the Ecumenist influence, to see that only those who were once in the Church through right baptism, having strayed through various heresies and now renouncing them, may be received back into the Church through Chrismation alone. They are not baptized “again” because they have already been baptized into the church. On the other hand, the faith of the Church is that all others must be baptized because, according to the Church, what they call baptism is not baptism at all. Thus

Southern Baptists and other Heterodox have NEVER BEEN BAPTIZED!

So, restating the two issues:

1. Should a heterodox convert be baptized?

2. Should the heterodox baptism have been by triple immersion?

The second question becomes irrelevant if the answer to the first is "YES."

There is nothing confusing about what the Church has always practiced, that which has been believed "everywhere, always, by all". See the words of the pre-Ecumenist Church:

“The church in Constantinople condemned Sabellian baptism in a letter to Antioch around 450, the Justinian Code of 529 (Byzantine Empire) declared the death penalty for both antitrinitarianism and rebaptism, the Council of Constantinople in 553 again condemned Sabellian baptism, and Martin Damiun (died 579), bishop of Braga, condemned Sabellian baptism for ‘retaining single immersion under a single name’.”

Canon 95

Those who from the heretics come over to orthodoxy, and to the number of those who should be saved, we receive according to the following order and custom. Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, who call themselves Cathari, Aristeri, and Testareskaidecatitæ, or Tetraditæ, and Apollinarians, we receive on their presentation of certificates and on their anathematizing every heresy which does not hold as does the holy Apostolic Church of God: then first of all we anoint them with the holy chrism on their foreheads, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears; and as we seal them we say— The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. But concerning the Paulianists it has been determined by the Catholic Church that they shall by all means be rebaptized. The Eunomeans also, who baptize with one immersion; and the Montanists, who here are called Phrygians; and the Sabellians, who consider the Son to be the same as the Father, and are guilty in certain other grave matters, and all the other heresies— for there are many heretics here, especially those who come from the region of the Galatians— all of their number who are desirous of coming to the Orthodox faith, we receive as Gentiles. And on the first day we make them Christians, on the second Catechumens, then on the third day we exorcise them, at the same time also breathing thrice upon their faces and ears; and thus we initiate them, and we make them spend time in church and hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them. And the Manichæans, and Valentinians and Marcionites and all of similar heresies must give certificates and anathematize each his own heresy, and also Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and the other chiefs of such heresies, and those who think with them, and all the aforesaid heresies; and so they become partakers of the holy Communion.

Apostles Canon #49 & 50

49. If any Bishop or Presbyter baptize anyone not into the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Lord’s ordinance, but into three beginningless beings or into three sons or into three comforters, let him be deposed.

Interpretation.

When the Lord sent forth His disciples to preach the Gospel, He told them: “Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). So the present Apostolical Canon prescribes that any Bishop or Presbyter who, instead of baptizing in that manner, in accordance with the ordinance of the Lord’s, baptizes into three beginningless beings, into three sons, or into three comforters shall be deposed. For certain heretics, blaspheming against the Holy Trinity, were being baptized in such a manner notwithstanding that the Church of orthodox Christians had received instructions to say the Father on account of His being beginning-less and unbegotten, even though the Son is also said to be beginningless as respects any beginning in point of time, as St. Gregory the Theologian theologically argues: and likewise to say the Holy Spirit, though not with respect to cause and natural beginning, for this character belongs only to the Father. Accordingly, the formula includes a Son on account of His ineffable birth, and a Paraclete (or Comforter), the Holy Spirit, on account of His super-rational procession out of the Father alone. Note, on the other hand, that all the Canons of the Apostles that relate to and speak of baptism mention only Bishops and Presbyters. For they alone have permission to baptize, and deacons and other clergymen have not.

50. Trine immersion in baptism.

If any Bishop or Presbyter does not perform three immersions (literally, “three baptisms”) in making one baptism (literally, “one initiation”), but (sc. only) a single immersion (literally, “a single baptism”), that given into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed (sc. from office). For the Lord did not say, “Baptize ye into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

Interpretation.

There are three things quite necessary and in any case altogether indispensable in the mystery (i.e., sacrament) of Holy Baptism: holy water; trine immersion and emersion in the water; and an invocation of each of the three Supergod Substances. In the foregoing 49th Canon the divine Apostles ordered and taught concerning the three invocations, what names we are to say, and in what order. In the present, or 50th, Canon they proceed to ordain concerning the three immersions and emersions. This means, as we have said, that these are necessary as regards what is simply called necessary, and are constituents of the true and orthodox baptism. Accordingly, without them not only is a baptism incomplete, but it cannot even be called a baptism at all. For, if to baptize means in more familiar language to dip, then speaking of immersions in the water is the same thing as speaking of three dips or baptisms; a dip is also called a baptism, and is not so called because of anything else. But let us see what the Apostles decree in regard to the word. Whatever bishop or presbyter in the single mystery of baptism fails to perform three baptisms, or three immersions, but instead performs only one immersion carried out as though into the one death of the Lord, let him be deposed from office. (See this Apostolical Canon refuting Eunomius — a Roman Catholic bishop deposed A.D. 361 — the first to substitute a single immersion in baptism, as we said before, though other heretics may have been doing this even in the time of the holy Apostles). Since the Lord did not tell us, His Apostles, when He was sending us forth to preach, “Baptize ye in my death,” but instead He told us, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” — which means, of course, baptize ye them with three immersions and emersions, and with each immersion add ye aloud each single name of the Holy Trinity. For in a single immersion and emersion neither is the three days’ death of the Savior perspicuously represented nor are the mystery and the theognosy (i.e., knowledge of God) of the Holy Trinity at all indicated. Hence any such baptism, being destitute of theology, and of the incarnate economy, is most impious and cacodoxical. But with three immersions and emersions both faith in the Holy Trinity is clearly affirmed and the three days’ death and burial and resurrection of the Savior are at the same time symbolized. Thence it consequently follows that our baptism comprises the two fore­most dogmas of our expression of the orthodox faith — that, I mean, of the theology of the vivifying Trinity, and that of the incarnate economy of the God Logos.

Does it not then raise a question to all Antiochian coverts who were received by Metropolitan Philip? Is it not of concern that this man, whose uncanonical, heretical, deceptive, fraudulent, greedy, self-serving practices are now being exposed, is also the one who told thousands of converts to “come on in, your water is fine”? Would one not at least want to explore how it is that such a stance seems opposed to the Canons and seems to fly in the face of the “everywhere, always, by all” principal of Saint Vincent of Lerins?

John, you misstate when you say that “I simply think that leaving the church is not the right course of action, there we differ in strategy.” Nowhere have I suggested a strategy to “leave the church” and indeed I have not done so. I have left the Antiochian jurisdiction, so that I might rightly enter the Genuine Orthodox Church! The Monks on Mount Athos, to which you refer, are being heavily persecuted with violence for just this reason! Many refuse to remain under the jurisdiction of those patriarchs or bishops who have become apostate. One monastery is holed up having their water and food supplies cut off by the “Orthodox Hierarchy” and the government law enforcement. Why are the Antiochians and the members of SCOBA, your Metropolitan, your Bishop and your local priests not publicly denouncing this and coming to the aid of their brothers? Could it be because it is YOUR Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew who is leading this violent, oppressive charge? The World Orthodox of which you are a part, will willingly commune with Roman Catholics and call Muslims their brothers, but let an Orthodox person leave their jurisdiction with a heart toward the purity of the Faith of our Fathers and all hell is released on them.

A good way to judge who is adhering to the Faith of our Fathers is to follow the persecution, particularly in Greece and Russia but ever increasing on our shores. Likewise, me and my family have had “shame” pronounced on us and I have been accused of “besmirching” the name of the priest, of being “rebellious” and have been called "deranged and irrational." All this because I posted a doctrinal statement after we left explaining Why We Left The Antiochian Diocese and Where We Went. Though this persecution is minor in comparison, I know there will be more in the days ahead.Yet, not one of these accusers, I say again, NOT ONE, has offered a substantial biblical, scriptural, canonical, or historical argument refuting what I have presented. To the contrary,

They actually agree concerning the presence of the heresies

while deriding our decision to separate ourselves from them!

Granted, couched between their personal attacks they have given various opinions and examples, but Orthodoxy is Right Belief and Right Teaching not Right Opinion. This is why I emphasized to you that our opinions mean nothing unless they come along side that which is believed “everywhere, always, by all.”

Even the Associate Editor Of the Antiochian.Org Website issued this response after having read the JTO article, Why We Left...Where We Went,

"Though we can't publish your article for obvious reasons,

it contains some valid points...there is no doubt that the Church is a mess..."

So they acquiesce to the existence of heresies, but like

A Frog In Boiling Water,

they remain in the pot and those who hop out are gigged.

Brethren this out not so to be!

"Leave the church"? A resounding, NO! But, if you have not been canonically and scripturally baptized and your local church will not baptize you, then a qualified, resounding, YES! For the sake of your soul, leave your local church or jurisdiction and find a Genuine or True (See the JTO Links) jurisdiction that still adheres to this vital Orthodox truth.

It is strange that baptizing converts has become a foreign concept to some Antiochians and other jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy. John, perhaps your priest should take note of his fellow Antiochian priest, Father Andrew, at Saint John The Theologian Christian Orthodox Church in San Juan Capistrano, California. The recent baptism of 30-plus converts included mostly those from the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Churches (ICCEC). One of his parishioners explains the event thus,

-->

"I was so proud of Father Andrew. I know it was a difficult decision because his bishop basically let him make the decision on whether he was going to baptize a certain amount of us or be chrismated. And I have no personal distinction with those who were chrismated and those who were baptized other than to say this, that he [Father Andrew] had given of himself to study on this and it’s only been in the last 150 to 200 years where there’s been a distinction or an economy model of the latter because the bishop guards the faith of the church and the priest as an extension of the bishop guards that as well and the parish, the orthodox parishioners guard the faith. So, you know I had people ask me questions, 'what do you think he’s gonna do?'. I said, 'pray for him that he has courage to make the right decision, even if it’s unpopular'. And as it turns out he did make the decision for many people that had a preference and he said, 'I feel that you should be baptized', or, 'you should go this way…' And in the economy model its..the pastoral application, if we were going to use contemporary terms, then we’d say, 'Well I don’t want it to be a deal breaker. I mean if you have a trinitarian baptism and you don’t want to be baptized, welcome into the church. You know, the Bishop gives his amen and you have the blessing, you're not any less than anybody else.' The thing that I am trying to get at-he [Father Andrew] kept a standard that was not necessarily contemporary, good feel idea. It was what people had died for, martyrs had given their life for to keep the dogma of the church consistent. And I really believe that one of the expressions you are going to see in American Orthodoxy is a return if you will or a presentation of the dogma with no apologies or no being ashamed to present the thing that the martyrs have given their life for and given their blood for ...” (Kevin Barry)

This is of particular interest to me because my family and I were also ICCEC just prior to our entry in the Orthodox Church and yet we were not baptized. We were not even required to produce a baptismal certificate proving our SB baptism. One priest baptizes and one does not. Where is the absolute truth in this matter? "Are we to be ortho-dox or homoios-dox- right believers or similar believers"? Since the Canons equally condemn both the failure to baptize and baptizing twice, both of these Antiochian priests cannot be correct. I propose that one of these priests is following the Canons and the practice of the Church, the other is not. The heresy of Ecumenism says, "Come on in, your water is fine" but

THIS IS THE FAITH:

"I confess one baptism for the remission of sins,"

So, you must be baptized by triple immersion in the

One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

for the remission sins.

See this Antiochian Priest baptize Converts who only had a "similarity of beliefs". Apparently he knows something that some of his fellow Antiochian clergy do not. 

[UPDATE: 12/27/10 - Notice that the video below, which was once public, now has restricted access. Why? I actually e-mailed the priest at the time of this original post, to interview him as to  his decision to baptize the ICCEC members. Father Andrew did not respond. Knowing that his Bishop and the AOC as a whole is immersed in the Ecumenical movement, it is likely that his right decision to baptize was not met with a positive response. I still welcome a response from Father Andrew.]

John, please pray for me and my family as we continue our journey toward the sacrament of Holy Baptism. My wife put our leaving the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the subsequent critisim we have endured in very simple terms when she said, "Don't they understand? We just want to be baptized. They wouldn't baptize us!" We had to leave Antioch. Perhaps with Antiochian priests such as Father Andrew there is still hope for some who remain.