Vladyka Agafangel's Response in human-English,

PLEASE WIDELY SHARE!: Our ROCA Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel's Response in human-English, with the original Russian text: "Metropolitan Agafangel's Response to 'The open letter of the Pre-Council Committee of the 6th. All-Diaspora Council' "    Inbox

Dan Everiss <oregdan@hotmail.com> Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:24 PM Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original The Russian original text is below this human-English translation: The following human-English translation from the original Russian version, which text has appeared on the Internet-Sobor website. Metropolitan Agafangel: Response to "The open letter of the Pre-Council Committee of the 6th All-Diaspora Council" I received via e-mail an "open letter" from a group of people who call themselves "the Pre-Council Committee of the 6th All-Diaspora Council." This appeal, finally, actually includes some suggestions. Unfortunately, they are presented in the form of an ultimatum. But the mere fact that at least those exist, is certainly positive. In the appeal, there obviously should have been some formulated and corresponding charges against me. However, once again, I did not find any serious charges, apart from the disputed claims that I allegedly "drive out schismatics from the Church" and "do not listen to the flock" - and that is all. So if you abide by the words of the authors of the appeal, that is the reason, the cause for a schism! (Disobeying the Council of Bishops and the Synod, and their desire for having power exclusively for themselves, is a schism, unless of course, the authors of the appeal prefer the term parasynagogue). There are three proposed requirements in the appeal, which, if executed- there is a promise of the avoidance of a schism:  1. "To cancel the unwarranted bans imposed on the bishops, clergy and laity, and to introduce the practice of a church trial, according to the canons." It would be desirable to give me at least one example of an "unwarranted ban", and to substantiate as to why the bans are "unwarranted". Otherwise, it is not clear what it is all about. I agree that I am to blame for the fact that I did not explain things clearly enough, each and every time, when the bans were imposed. But I cannot agree with the allegation that I am guided by the "unwillingness to listen to my flock, and by a willingness to get rid from our church of all dissenters." We resolved at the Synod to consider the expediency of convening an All-Diaspora Council, but the schismatics ignored this appeal and decided instead to convene their own supposed All-Diaspora Council and, moreover, not with the aim of finding a solution to the difficult situation which was created, but frankly with the goal of creating a schism. The signatories of this appeal, all nine of those people, currently dare to call six bishops, again- not to discuss the situation- but to try them as defendants (the bishops). This year, an Ecclesiastical Church trial was held in accordance with the canons, but this group refuses to recognize its decisions. 2. "We respectfully ask you to resign as Chairman of the Council of Bishops and of the Synod, yet maintaining the rank of Metropolitan and the management of the Odessa diocese." Can I, as a result of the demands of nine people, who, in addition to organizing a parasynagogue, single-handedly and according to my own will, remove my obedience from myself, which is legally entrusted to me according to the fullness of the Church? Would not that be a violation of catholicity? Maybe then, other members of the Church should also be asked, to do the same? I understand that a legitimate All-Diaspora Council of Bishops or Synod can ask me to resign and justify this proposal. If that be the case, then truly, it should be considered. Without an informed and authoritative opinion which comes from the fullness of the Church, the demands of the schismatics simply are not serious. As I have written before, and as I repeat now, if whichever historical "fragment" wishes to unite with us without violating their own, albeit, internal canonical order, and if they are in agreement with the ecclesiology which was formulated together by the sister Old Calendar Churches, and for the sake of removing obstacles to such a reunion, I agree to submit an application for a legitimate All-Diaspora Council gathered for the occasion, to send me into retirement. Let us allow the Council to decide to fulfill my request, as to whether or not to send me into retirement and to elect a new First Hierarch, or else, to leave the structure of our Russian Church Abroad as it is. My offer still stands true today. 3. "To create three autonomous regional churches: Ukrainian-Moldavian, Russian, the Far-East Abroad. Each of them will be managed by its own Synod. " Regional jurisdictions (true, without "its own Synod") existed long before the formation of the ROCOR and went to our historical Church from the Local Russian Church. They were abolished by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad due to the fact that they were the source of schismatic disruptions (which, as a result, led to the formation of the OCA, the Evlogian schism and the unification of the Far Eastern jurisdictions with the MP). In other words, the ROCOR fathers were not supporters of such constituencies, but rather opposed them. Centralization poses a threat where there is a possibility of external influence on the leadership of the Church (as it was in the USSR, and is now in the Russian Federation), which is manifested in the form of separatism and the destruction of the catholic universal order of the Church (the formation of the multitude of "self-governing" renovationist groups), and ulteriorly, as an artificial substitute for the overall guidance of the Russian Church. In my opinion, the new group of schismatics gives rise to the suspicion of the existence of an external influence upon it. They personally offer me, in bypassing the whole Church, to change the established, historical, operation of the Holy Spirit, its structure, and to create a revolution (within our Church). Supposing I do as they insist - it is not even the fact of the violation of catholicity, but, really, the end and the complete collapse of the ROCOR, in as much as the majority do not wish to follow this uncanonical act, and to be disoriented and deprived of its head: "For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered "(Mark 14.27). The unity and catholicity of the Church is not in making three Synods out of one (i.e., out of one ROCOR to make three -  our fathers could not even  have come up with such an idea), but is in the spiritual unity of the faithful, regardless of the area in which they live. It is precisely the destruction of spiritual unity, in which the schismatics’ offer is directed. I do not know who inspired them; in the words of the Holy Martyr Metropolitan Kyrill Smirnov- trying to make out of me a "bomb with which to explode from the inside of the Russian Church" (we know who offered this to Metropolitan Kirill). Following the example of the Holy Martyr, I do not intend to stand in the ranks of the destroyers of the Russian Church. At the same time, we propose to consider the possibility of organizing a Bishops’ council in the United States, South America and Canada, a meeting, which may, following the example of the Russian Eminences’ meeting- resolve many questions. Here, I set forth my personal opinion only, not so as to outright completely dismiss all the offers of the dissenters, but in order to show them that their opinion is not the sole point of view of our church members, nor is it uncontested. The final verdict on these matters should be carried out by the Bishops' Council. According to the words of the Apostle Paul: "I charge thee therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall turn unto fables. "(2 Tim 4.1-4) By virtue of the power and authority given to me, I appeal once again to those who plan ​​a schism in our Church: If you really "earnestly seek to avoid a schism, and to find a form of church relations which best corresponds to the spirit of catholicity in the historical ROCA", then follow the spirit of catholicity of the historical ROCA. Do not trample on the rules and canons specifically established by the fathers for the avoidance of schisms and for eliminating disruption in the Church. Go the way of the legitimate canonical path. Let Bishops Andronik and Sophrony take part in the Council of Bishops in October, so that we can jointly discuss the existing situation and the ways out of it. There are no alternatives and there cannot be, insofar as this is the only way offered by the Fathers of the ROCOR in similar circumstances, and not only by the Fathers of the ROCOR, but also of the entire Orthodoxy. First Hierarch of the ROCOR + Metropolitan Agafangel September 27 / October 10, New Hieromartyr Peter, Metropolitan of Krutitsa