St Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral in New York NY, the subject of a landmark legal decision in the 1960s regarding church property
Yesterday, I received a nastygram from an OCA “true believer”. It was the usual sort of thing one expects from such sorts. I was urged to “think a bit before posting” as the “vast majority of clergy and faithful in the OCA don’t care about the Russian Church”. In addition, the St Nicholas Cathedral court case had no bearing upon the present. There was much else in the same vein.
As I have no desire to be spiteful to anyone personally, I shall not use the poster’s name. Let’s call them “Outraged”. This gives no hint as to the poster’s name, sex, or national origin. I believe that it is eminently kosher to take on ideas and hold them up to ridicule. I refuse to do such to any private person, for that would mean that I had sunk into the same pit that some have (I would refer all disinterested people to the Koumentakos case in Maryland and the personal vilification hurled at Mr Gregory Nescott and his family), and I firmly believe that such personal viciousness puts one in league with the Evil One (Ol’ Scratch has many arrows in his quiver of temptations).
“Outraged”, of course, gave no sources for their statements. Obviously, your question to me is, “Why have you come to such conclusions? What is the basis for your assertions?” Great questions and I’ll do my best to “stand and deliver”.
The main thesis that “Outraged” objected to was my analysis of the imminent end of the OCA and the apparent closeness of a possible lifting of the 1970 Tomos of Autocephaly. The first thing to consider is that when the Tomos was issued, the MP did not roll up its jurisdiction in the US and Canada. If, indeed, the OCA was the canonical Local Church in the US and Canada, not only would the MP have to merge its jurisdiction with the OCA, it would have to break communion with all who did not recognise the canonicity of the Tomos. Neither of these actions took place. From the outset, there was canonical irregularity present.
Then, let’s fast forward to the near present. When the ROCOR and MP started negotiations on reunion, it was obvious that many of the ROCOR parishes were on the “canonical territory” of the OCA. That is, the OCA, if it were canonical, would have to have a seat at the negotiations, or, at the least, be an observer. The logic in this is simple. If something happens on the canonical territory of a recognised Local Church, it must be involved in any decision affecting its territory. The OCA was barred from the talks, the grounds being that it was “an internal Russian Church matter”. I have no doubt that the OCA tried to garner support for its position from other Local Churches. Note well that no other Local Church, NOT ONE, came to its support. Not even the EP chose to get involved, even though the EP never misses an opportunity to stab the MP in the back.
Then, in late 2006, Herman wrote a letter to Patriarch Aleksei (posted on the Interfax-Religion website) demanding a role in the negotiations, specifically, he demanded the right to veto the accession of ex-OCA ROCOR clergy to the MP. This letter was ignored. In a further attempt to enter the negotiations, Herman sent Leonid Kishkovsky, one of the most well-known and notorious Renovationists, to Moscow to press his case. In short, Kishkovsky was rebuffed. He was told that the talks were an internal matter of the Russian Church, and if he wished to join them, the OCA would have to abjure its autocephaly and submit to the MP. They are not fools in Moscow or Jordanville. This incident, quite obviously, was not publicised in the press, but, I have it from three very disparate sources, which is a warrant of its accuracy. Also, whenever I have mentioned such, no OCA apologist has ever called me a liar or scandalmonger (which they do with great ease, let me assure you).
Metropolitan Laurus Skurla of New York and Eastern America [1928-2008], confessor-First Hierarch of the ROCOR, author of the reconciliation of 2007 with the MP
If the MP refused to allow the OCA to observe negotiations that affected its territory, then, it is logical to conclude that the MP does not de facto recognise the OCA as the canonical Local Church in the Americas at present. There are other events surrounding the reconciliation that are evidences of the irrelevancy of the OCA. When President Putin visited New York City, he met with Metropolitan Laurus, but, not with Herman. Herman Swaiko is a vain and proud man who NEVER misses a photo op, especially if it were to be with such a world figure as President Vladimir Putin. Clearly, Herman was not invited. Since Herman is Archbishop of New York and Washington, that means that if the OCA were a recognised Local Church, he would be the ruling Orthodox hierarch, and President Putin has always paid his respects to local ruling bishops, even those he disagreed with. Ergo, the MP, by this action, recognised Laurus as Archbishop of New York, not Herman.
No OCA delegation was invited to be part of the ceremony of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion on 17 May 2007. Delegations from other Local Churches were present, and their representatives read their greetings on the occasion. Not one of the Local Churches protested the exclusion of the OCA; could it be because none of the Local Churches recognises its autocephaly? The ubiquitous Mr Kishkovsky tried to barge into the proceedings, but, he was not only barred from serving, he was given no forum in the legitimate Russian press.
The occurrences after the death of Vladyki Laurus were instructive. OCA clergy were only once allowed to be part of the proceedings, and that was at a Pannikhida on the Thursday evening preceding the funeral on Friday. I am told by eyewitnesses that it was served in a hurried and rushed manner. On the day of the funeral proper, OCA clergy were barred from serving at the funeral on the explicit order of Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsa and Kolomna, the Patriarchal Vicar of Moscow. Juvenaly is the unsinkable satrap and loyal assistant of Patriarch Aleksei, so, any order coming from Juvenaly is an order from His Holiness himself. This means that the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia barred OCA clergy from serving. In this case, not only was the omnipresent Mr Kishkovsky refused, so were a Rev Behr and Bishop Tikhon of Philadelphia and Eastern Pennsylvania. This was an open slap to the face of the OCA. No clergy of a recognised Local Church, no matter what the disagreement, would be treated in such a fashion. I was present at the funeral, so, I can give my personal attestation that no OCA clergy served on this occasion.
All of the above adds up to an unavoidable conclusion. Today, at the present, the MP does not recognise de facto the autocephaly of the OCA despite its de jure recognition. If any of the other Local Churches were to be treated by Moscow in such a manner, all the other Local Churches would rise in protest, and rightly so. None of the actions of the MP raised a peep from any other Local Church. NONE. That is to say, when the MP finally lifts the Tomos (only a matter of time, in my view), no one shall protest. Note well that not even the EP has come to the OCA’s defence. I would say that the OCA (by this, I mean the SVS/Syosset apparat) is now in a state of effectual isolation from world Orthodoxy. Their only allies are the equally squiffy lot in the EP Paris Jurisdiction.
“Outraged” informed me that it didn’t matter if the OCA was outside the ambit of world Orthodoxy, that was the case during the time of the Metropolia, they informed me, and they would do it again, by God. This is the most telling part of the attitude of “Outraged”. If this does not prove, even for the slow learners, that many OCA Renovationists are Protestants in all but name, I don’t know what would turn the trick. I say that we should not argue such points, we should simply observe who says them and where, and we should pass the word on to other Orthodox Christians so they can be informed of such heresy.
Indubitably, the court case surrounding the property dispute at St Nicholas Cathedral in New York City in the 60s is not an irrelevancy as “Outraged” asserts. Any lawyer would tell you that it set up a legal precedent, and any future judge would be guided by it. Methinks that “Outraged” says such because they do not wish any future ruling to be affected by this decision. This alone gives food for thought.
I believe that the weight of the above evidence proves that the OCA is not long for this world. Oh, yes, the episcopal titles “of Manhattan” and “of Seattle” are of long standing in the ROCOR. Note well that “of Mayfield” is not. I believe this is a hint to those of us “in the know”.
Not a pretty picture, is it? However, we must speak the truth to one another or the end-result is what one sees at present in the OCA. May God have mercy on us in the coming days. We are going to need it.
Vara Drezhlo
Friday 27 June 2008
This was most informative and interesting to read.
Comment by anya — Monday, 30 June 2008 @ 12:42