The First Sorrowful Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret

The Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church haveexhorted us to keep the Truth of Orthodoxy as the apple of our eye. And Our Lord JesusChrist, teaching His Disciples to maintain every jot and title of the Divine Law intactsaid, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shallteach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. v. 19).He sent His disciples to teach the doctrines He gave them to all nations in a pure andunadulterated form, and that duty then devolved upon each of us Bishops, as the successorsto the Apostles. We are also taught to do this by the dogmatic definition of the SeventhEcumenical Council, which says: "We keep unchanged all the ecclesiastical traditionshanded down to us, whether in writing or by word of mouth." And the Holy Fathers ofthat Council added, in their first Canon: "The pattern for those who have receivedthe sacerdotal dignity is found in the testimonies and instructions laid down in thecanonical constitutions, which we receiving with a glad mind sing unto the Lord God in thewords of the God-inspired David, saying: 'I have had as great delight in the way of Thytestimonies as in all manner of riches.' 'Thou hast commanded righteousness as Thytestimonies for ever.' 'Grant me understanding and I shall live.' Now if the word ofprophecy bids us keep the testimonies of God forever and to live by them, it is evidentthat they must abide unshaken and without change."

Every one of us solemnly promises at hisconsecration to abide by our Faith and to obey the canons of the Holy Fathers, vowingbefore God to keep Orthodoxy inviolate from the temptations and errors which creep intothe Church's life.

If a temptation appears in the fold of only oneOrthodox Church, the remedy for it may be found in the same fold. But if a particular evilpenetrates into all our Churches, it becomes a matter of concern for every single Bishop.Can any one of us be silent if he sees that many of his brethren simultaneously arewalking along a path that leads them and their flock to a disastrous precipice throughtheir unwitting loss of Orthodoxy?

Should we say in this case that humility commands usto keep silent? Should we regard it as indiscreet to lend advice to other descendants ofthe Holy Apostles, some of whom are occupying the most ancient and distinguished sees?

But Orthodoxy believes in the equality of allBishops as regards grace, and distinguishes between them only as regards honor.

Should we be satisfied with the fact that everyChurch is responsible for itself? But what if the statements which trouble the faithfulare made in the name of the whole Church, and therefore also involve our name, even thoughwe have not authorized anybody to use it?

St. Gregory the Theologian once said that there areoccasions "when even by silence truth can be betrayed." Should we not also bebetraying the truth if, on noticing a deviation from pure Orthodoxy, we merely keptsilence—always aneasier and safer thing to do than speaking out?

We observe, however, that nobody in a higherposition than our own is raising his voice; and this fact constrains us to speak out, lestat the Last Judgment we should be reproached for having seen the danger of Ecumenismthreaten the Church, and yet not having warned her Bishops.

To be sure, we have already addressedHis Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras andHis Eminence Archbishop Iakovos of North and SouthAmerica, expressing our grief and concern over their ecumenical activities, in which thebirthright of the Church has been sold for a mess of pottage in the form of the world'sapplause. But the position taken by the Orthodox delegates attheAssembly of the World Council of Churches at Uppsala makes the concern of the zealotsof Orthodoxy even more acute, and makes it necessary for us to communicate our sorrow andconfusion to all our Brother Orthodox Bishops.

We may be asked why we write about that Assemblyonly now, nearly a year after the closing of its sessions. Our answer is that on thisoccasion we had no observers present, and obtained information about the Assembly onlyfrom the press, the accuracy of which is not always to be relied upon. Therefore we wereawaiting the official reports; and having studied them, we find it imperative to addressthis letter to all the Orthodox Bishops whom the Lord has appointed to take care of HisChurch on earth.

The report on the Uppsala Assembly shocked usgreatly, because from it we could see more clearly than ever how far the error ofEcumenism is winning the official approval of a number of our Churches.

When the first steps were taken in the organizationof the Ecumenical Movement, many of the Orthodox Churches, following the initiative of thePatriarch of Constantinople, began to participate in its conferences. At the time suchparticipation did not cause any worry even among the most zealous Orthodox. They thoughtthat the Church would suffer no injury if her representatives appeared among varioustruth-seeking Protestants with the aim of presenting Orthodoxy in the face of theirvarious errors. Such a participation in inter-faith conferences could be thought of ashaving a missionary character.

This position was still maintained to a certainextent, though not always consistently, at the Evanston Assembly of the World Council ofChurches in 1954. There the Orthodox delegates openly stated that the decisions of theAssembly diverged so sharply from our teaching on the Church that they were unable in anyway to join with the others in accepting them. Instead, they expressed the doctrine of theOrthodox Church in separate statements.

Those statements were so plain that, in fact, theyshould have issued in the logical conclusion that the Orthodox ought not to remain asmembers of the World Council of Churches on the same basis as others. The Protestantsmight well have asked them: "If you disagree with our basic principles, why are youwith us?" We know that in private conversations some Protestants did use to say this,but the question was not raised in the plenary sessions. Thus the Orthodox remained asmembers of an organization the disparate origin of which they had just so clearlyillustrated.

But what do we see now?

The Pan-Orthodox Conference in Geneva in June 1968took a different course. It expressed "the general desire of the Orthodox Church tobe an organic member of the World Council of Churches and its decision to contribute inall ways to its progress, theological and otherwise, to the promotion and good developmentof the whole of the work of the World Council of Churches." His Holiness PatriarchAthenagoras informed the World Council of this decision in his special letter dated June30, 1968. There were no reservations; no mention was made of any missionary aims, eitherin the one case or the other.

We must be very clear as to what sort of religiousunion it is of which the Orthodox Church has been declared "an organic member,"and what the dogmatic implications of such a decision are.

In 1950, in Toronto, certain basic statements wereaccepted by the World Council of Churches which, while more cautious than the presentstatements, were already not in conformity with the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. On p.4 it was then stated that "The member Churches of the World Council consider therelationship of other Churches to the Holy Catholic Church which the Creeds profess as asubject for mutual consideration." This statement is already unacceptable for usbecause the Church is spoken of not as actually existing in the world, but as some kind ofabstract entity mentioned in various Creeds. However, even then, on p. 3, we read:"The member Churches recognize that the membership of the Church of Christ is moreinclusive than the membership of their own church body" (Six Ecumenical Surveys, NewYork, 1954, p. 13). But since in the preceding point (No. 2) it was stated that "Themember Churches of the World Council believe on the basis of the New Testament that theChurch of Christ is one," there is either an implicit contradiction or else theprofession of a new doctrine—viz., that no one can belong to the One Church withoutbelieving in her doctrines and without having liturgical unity with her.

The separate statements made in Evanston four yearslater on behalf of all the Orthodox delegates somewhat improved the situation, becausethey clearly showed that Orthodox Ecclesiology differs so much in essence from ProtestantEcclesiology that it is impossible to compose a joint statement. Now, however, theOrthodox participants in the World Council of Churches act differently; in an effort tounite truth with error, they have abandoned the principle expressed at Evanston. If allthe Orthodox Churches are organic members of the World Council ofChurches, then all the decisions of that Council are made in their name as well as in thename of the Protestants.

If initially the Orthodox participated in ecumenicalmeetings only to present the truth, performing, so to speak, a missionary service amongconfessions foreign to Orthodoxy, then now they have combined with them, and anyone cansay that what was said at Uppsala was also said by the member Orthodox Churches in theperson of their delegates. Alas that it should be said in the name of the whole OrthodoxChurch!

We regard it as our duty to protest in thestrongest possible terms against this state of affairs. We know that in this protestwe have with us all the Holy Fathers of the Church. Also with us are not only thehierarchy, clergy, and laymen of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but thosemembers of other Orthodox Churches who agreewith us as well.

We take the liberty of saying that it seems ourBrother Bishops have treated this matter without sufficient attention, without realizinghow far our Church is being drawn into the sphere of anti-canonical and even ofanti-dogmatical agreements with the heterodox. This fact is especially clear if one turnsto the initial statements of the representatives of the Orthodox Churches as compared withwhat is taking place at present.

At the Conference in Lausanne in 1937, therepresentative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Metropolitan Germanos, clearly stated thatrestoring unity with the Church means for Protestants that they must return to thedoctrines of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. "And what are theelements of the Christian doctrines," he said, "which should be regarded asnecessary and essential? According to the understanding of the Orthodox Church there is noneed now to make definitions of those necessary elements of faith, because they arealready made in the ancient Creeds and the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.Therefore this teaching of the ancient undivided Church should be the basis of the reunionof the Church." That was the position taken by all the Orthodox delegates at theLausanne and Oxford Conferences.

As for our Russian Orthodox Church Outside ofRussia, her views were expressed with particular clarity upon the appointment of arepresentative to the Committee for Continuation of the Conference on Faith and Order onDecember 18/31, 1931. That decision was as follows:

"Maintaining the belief in the One, Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church, the Synod of Bishops professes that the Church has neverbeen divided. The question is only who belongs to her and who does not. At the same timethe Synod warmly greets the efforts of heterodox confessions to study Christ's teaching onthe Church with the hope that by such study, especially with the participation of therepresentatives of the Holy Orthodox Church, they may at last come to the conviction thatthe Orthodox Church, being the pillar and the ground of the truth (I Tim. iii. 15), fullyand with no faults has maintained the doctrine given by Christ the Savior to Hisdisciples. With that Faith and with such hope the Synod of Bishops accepts the invitationof the Committee for Continuation of the Conference on Faith and Order."

Here everything is clear and nothing is left unsaid.This statement is essentially in agreement with what also used to be said at that time byofficial representatives of other Orthodox Churches.

What, then, has changed? Have the Protestantsabandoned their errors? No. They have not changed, and the Church has not changed; onlythe persons who are now said to represent her have changed.

If the representatives of the Orthodox Churches hadonly continued firmly maintaining the basic principles of our belief in the Church, theywould not have brought the Orthodox Church into the ambiguous position which was createdfor her by the decision of the Geneva Conference last year.

Since the Assembly of the World Council of Churchesin New Delhi, the Orthodox delegates no longer make separate statements, but have mergedinto one mass with the Protestant confessions. Thus all the decisions of the UppsalaAssembly are made in the name of "the Church," which is always spoken of in thesingular.

Who is speaking? Who gave these people the right tomake ecclesiological statements not merely on their own behalf, but also on behalf of theOrthodox Church?

We ask you, Most Reverend Brothers, to check thelist of the Churches participating in the Ecumenical Movement and in the World Council ofChurches. Take, for instance, at least the first lines of the list on page 444 ofTheUppsala 68 Report.

There you will find the following names: EvangelicalChurch of the River Plata, Methodist Church of Australia, Churches of Christ in Australia,The Church of England of Australia, Congregational Union of Australia, Presbyterian Churchof Australia ....

Is it necessary to continue the list? Is it notclear that beginning with the very first lines, confessions are included which differgreatly from Orthodoxy, which deny sacraments, hierarchy, Church tradition, holy canons,which do not venerate the Mother of God and the Saints, etc.? We should have to enumeratenearly all of our dogmas in order to point out what in our Orthodox doctrines is notaccepted by the majority of the members of the World Council of Churches—of which,however, the Orthodox Church is now nevertheless alleged to be an organic member.

Yet in the name of this union of the variousrepresentatives of all possible heresies, the Uppsala Assembly constantly states:"The Church professes," "The Church teaches," "The Church doesthis and that ...."

Out of this mixture of errors, which have gone sofar astray from Tradition, the published decision on "The Holy Spirit and theCatholicity of the Church" makes the statement: "The Holy Spirit has not onlypreserved the Church in continuity with the past; He is also continuously present in theChurch, effecting her inward renewal and re-creation."

The question is: Where is the "continuity withthe past" among the Presbyterians? Where is the presence of the Holy Spirit amongthose who do not recognize any mysteries? How can one speak of the catholicity of thosewho do not accept the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils?

If these doctrinal decisions were preceded by wordsindicating that one part of the Churches observes one doctrine, and the other a differentdoctrine, and the teaching of the Orthodox Church were stated separately, that would be consistent with reality. But such is not the case,and in the name of various confessions they say: "The Church teaches.... "

This in itself is a proclamation of the Protestantdoctrine of the Church as comprising all those who call themselves Christians, even ifthey have no intercommunion. But without accepting that doctrine, it is impossible to bean organic member of the World Council of Churches, because that doctrine is the basis ofthe whole ideology on which this organization rests.

True, the resolution "On the Holy Spirit andthe Catholicity of the Church" is followed by a note in fine print which says thatsince this resolution provoked such a great diversity of views, this decision is not finalbut only a summary of the matters considered in the Section. However, there are not suchremarks regarding other similar resolutions. The minutes contain no evidence that theOrthodox delegates made any statements to the effect that the Assembly might not speak inthe name of the Church in the singular; and the Assembly does so everywhere, in all itsresolutions, which never have such qualifying remarks attached.

On the contrary, His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, inhis reply to the greeting of the Swedish Archbishop, said in the name of the Assembly,"As you well know, the Church universal is called by a demanding world to give ampleevidence of its faith" (The Uppsala 69 Report, p. 103).

Of what "Church universal" did ArchbishopIakovos speak? Of the Orthodox Church? No. He spoke here of the "Church" unitingall confessions, of the Church of the World Council of Churches.

A tendency to speak in this fashion is especiallyconspicuous in the report of the Committee on Faith and Order. In the resolution upon itsreport, following statements about the success of Ecumenism, it says: "We are inagreement with the decision of the Faith and Order Commission at its Bristol meeting topursue its study program of the unity of the Church in the wider context of the study ofthe unity of mankind and of creation. We welcome at the same time the statement of theFaith and Order Commission that its task remains 'to proclaim the oneness of the Church ofJesus Christ' and to keep before the Council and the churches 'the obligation to manifestthat unity for the sake of their Lord and for the better accomplishment of his mission inthe world'" (ibid., p. 223).

The implication is clear in all these resolutionsthat, notwithstanding the outward separation of the Churches, their internal unity stillexists. The aim of Ecumenism is in this world to make this inner unity also an outward onethrough various manifestations of such aspirations.

In order to evaluate all this from the point of viewof the Orthodox Church, it is sufficient to imagine the reception it would find among theHoly Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Can anybody imagine the Orthodox Church of thatperiod declaring itself an organic member of a society uniting Eunomians or Anomoeans,Arians, Semi-Arians, Sabellians, and Apollinarians?

Certainly not! On the contrary, Canon I of theSecond Ecumenical Council does not call for union with such groups, but anathematizesthem. Subsequent Ecumenical Councils did the same in regard to other heresies.

The organic membership of Orthodox Christians in onebody with modern heretics will not sanctify the latter, but does alienate those Orthodoxfrom the catholic Orthodox unity. That unity is not limited to the modern age. Catholicityembraces all the generations of the Holy Fathers. St. Vincent of Lérins, inhis immortal work, writes that "for Christians to declaresomething which they did not previously accept has never been permitted, is neverpermitted, and never will be permitted,—but to anathematize those who proclaimsomething outside of that which was accepted once and for ever, has always been a duty, isalways a duty, and always will be a duty."

Perhaps somebody will say that times have changed,and heresies now are not so malicious and destructive as in the days of the EcumenicalCouncils. But are those Protestants who renounce the veneration of the Theotokos and theSaints, who do not recognize the grace of the hierarchy,—or the Roman Catholics, whohave invented new errors,—are they nearer to the Orthodox Church than the Arians orSemi-Arians?

Let us grant that modern preachers of heresy are notso belligerent towards the Orthodox Church as the ancient ones were. However, that is notbecause their doctrines are nearer to Orthodox teaching, but because Protestantism andEcumenism have built up in them the conviction that there is no One and True Church onearth, but only communities of men who are in varying degrees of error. Such a doctrinekills any zeal in professing what they take to be the truth, and therefore modern hereticsappear to be less obdurate than the ancient ones. But such indifference to truth is inmany respects worse than the capacity to be zealous in defense of an error mistaken fortruth. Pilate, who said "What is truth?" could not be converted; but Saul, thepersecutor of Christianity, became the Apostle Paul. That is why we read in the Book ofRevelation the menacing words to the Angel of the Church of Laodicea: "I know thyworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then becausethou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth" (iii.15-16).

Ecumenism makes the World Council of Churches asociety in which every member, with Laodicean indifference, recognizes himself and othersas being in error, and is concerned only about finding phrases which will express thaterror in terms acceptable to all. Is there any room here as an "organic member"for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which has always professed itself to beholy and without blemish because its Head is Christ Himself (Eph. v. 27)?

The LVII (LXVI in the Athens Syntagma) Canon ofCarthage says of the Church that she is "the one spoken of as a dove (Song of Songs,vi.9) and sole mother of Christians, in whom all the sanctifying gifts, savinglyeverlasting and vital are received—which, however, inflict upon those persisting inheresy the great punishment of damnation."

We also feel it is our duty to declare that it isimpossible to recognize the Russian Church as legally and duly represented at thePan-Orthodox Conferences called by His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras. Those Bishops whoparticipate in these Conferences in the name of the Russian Church with MetropolitanNikodim at their head, do not represent the authentic Russian Church. They represent onlythose Bishopswho by the will of an atheisticGovernment bear the titles of certain Dioceses of the Church of Russia. We havealready had occasion to write about this matter to His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras.These persons participate in meetings abroad only in so far as such participation isprofitable to their civil authorities, the most cruel in the history of the world. Nero'sferocity and Julian the Apostate's hatred of Christianity are pallid in comparison.

Is it not to the influence of that Government thatwe must largely ascribe the political resolutions of the Uppsala Assembly, which repeatmany slogans widely observable in Communist propaganda in the West?

In the concluding speech of the Chairman, Dr. Payne,it was said that "the Church of Jesus Christ must show actively the compassion ofChrist in a needy world." But neither he nor anybody else said a word about themillions of Christians martyred in the U.S.S.R.; nobody spoke a word of compassion abouttheir plight.

It is good to express compassion for the hungry inBiefra, for those who constantly suffer from fighting in the Middle East or in Vietnam;but does that cover all the human afflictions of the present time? Can it be that themembers of the World Council of Churches know nothing about thepersecutions of Religion in the U.S.S.R.? Do they notknow what iniquity is reigning there? Do they not know that martyrs for the Faith thereare counted in the millions, that the Holy Scriptures are not published there and thatpeople are sentenced to banishment with hard labor for distributing them? Do they not knowthat children there are prevented from lessons in the basic principles of Religion, andeven from attending religious services? Do they not know of the thousands who have beenbanished for their Faith, about the children wrested from their parents to prevent themfrom receiving religious upbringing?

All this is certainly well known to anybody whoreads the newspapers, but it is never mentioned in any resolution of the World Council ofChurches. The ecumenical priests and Levites are passing by in silence and withoutinterest, without so much as a glance in the direction of the Christians persecuted in theU.S.S.R. They are silent because the official representatives of the Church of Russia, inspite of all evidence to the contrary, deny the existence of these persecutions in orderto please their civil authorities.

These people are not free. Whether they wish to ornot, they are forced to speak in obedience to orders from Communist Moscow. The burden ofpersecution makes them more deserving of compassion than of blame. But being moralprisoners of the godless, they cannot be true spokesmen for the Russian Orthodox Church,suffering, deprived of any rights, forced to be silent, driven into catacombs and prisons.

The late Patriarch Sergius and the present PatriarchAlexis were elected in violation of the rules which were instituted by the All-RussianChurch Council of 1917 at the restoration of the Patriarchate. Both were chosen accordingto the instructions of Stalin, the fiercest persecutor of the Church in history.

Can you imagine a Bishop of Rome chosen according tothe instructions of Nero? But Stalin was many times worse.

The hierarchs selected by Stalin had to promisetheir obedience to an atheistic Government whose aim, according to the Communist program,is the annihilation of Religion. The present Patriarch Alexis wrote to Stalin immediatelyafter the death of his predecessor that he would observe fidelity to his Government:"Acting fully in concert with the Council for the Affairs of the Russian OrthodoxChurch and also with the Holy Synod instituted by the late Patriarch, I will be securefrom mistakes and wrong actions."

Everybody knows that "mistakes and wrongactions" in the language of the Moscow masters means any violation of theinstructions given by the Communist authorities.

We can pity an unfortunate old man, but we cannotrecognize him as the Head of the Russian Church, of which we regard ourselves aninseparable part. Both to Patriarch Alexis and his collaborators the sanctions of the XXXApostolic Canon and Canon III of the Seventh Ecumenical Council can be doubly applied:"If any bishop, making use of the secular powers, shall by their means obtainjurisdiction over any church, he shall be deposed, and also excommunicated, together withall who remain in communion with him.''

Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia, in his commentary on theXXX Apostolic Canon, says: "If the Church condemned the unlawful influence of civilauthorities on the appointment of a bishop at a time when the Rulers were Christians, howmuch the more so, consequently, she had to condemn it when they were heathens." Whatis there to say, therefore, when a Patriarch and Bishops are installed by the openand militant enemies of their religion?

When one part of the Russian Episcopate, togetherwith the late Patriarch (at that time Metropolitan) Sergius, took the course of agreeingwith the enemies of the Church in 1927, a large (and the most respected) part of thatEpiscopate, withMetropolitan Joseph of Leningradand the first candidate of Patriarch Tikhon for the office of locum tenens,Metropolitan Cyrill ofKazan, did not agree to go along with him, preferring banishment and martyrdom.Metropolitan Joseph by that time had already come to the conclusion that, in the face of aGovernment which openly had as its goal the destruction of Religion by the use of anyavailable means, the legal existence of a Church Administration becomes practicallyimpossible without entailing compromises which are too great and too sinful. He thereforestarted secret ordinations of Bishops and priests, in that way organizing theCatacomb Church which still exists in hiding.

The atheists seldom mention the Catacomb Church,being afraid of giving her too much publicity. Only very rarely in the Soviet Press is thenews of some trial of her members mentioned. Information about her, however, is given inmanuals for anti-religious workers in the U.S.S.R. For instance, the basic informationabout this Church, under the name of "The Truly Orthodox Church," is given in amanual with the title of Slovar Ateista ("TheAtheist's Dictionary"), published in Moscow in 1964.

With no open churches, in secret meetings similar tothe catacomb meetings of the early Christians, these confessors of the Faith perform theirservices unseen by the outer world. They are the true representatives of the RussianOrthodox Church, whose greatness will become known to the world only after the downfall ofthe Communist power.

For these reasons, although representatives of theMoscow Patriarchate participated in the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Genevalast year, and particularly in regard to making the Orthodox Church an organic member ofthe World Council of Churches,—we look upon that decision as having been acceptedwithout the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church. That Church is forced to staysilent, and we, as her free representatives, are grieved by the fact that such a decisionwas accepted. We categorically protest that decision as being contrary to the very natureitself of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

The poison of heresy is not too dangerous when it ispreached only from outside the Church. Many times more perilous is that poison which isgradually introduced into the organism in larger and larger doses by those who, in virtueof their position, should not be poisoners but spiritual physicians.

Can it be that the Orthodox Episcopate will remainindifferent to that danger? Will it not be too late to protect our spiritual flock whenthe wolves are devouring the sheep before their pastors' eyes, inside the very sheepfolditself?

Do we not see the divine sword already raised (Matt.x. 34), separating those who are true to the traditional faith of the Holy Church fromthose who, in the words of His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras in his greeting to theUppsala Assembly, are working to shape the "new drive in the ecumenicalmovement" for the "fulfillment of the general Christian renewal" on thepaths of reformation and indifference to the truth?

It seems that we have shown clearly enough that thisapparent unity is not unity in the truth of Orthodoxy, but a unity that mixes white withblack, good with evil, and truth with error.

We have already protested against the unorthodoxecumenical actions of His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras and Archbishop Iakovos in letterswhich were widely distributed to Bishops of the Orthodox Church in various countries. Wehave received from different parts of the world expressions of agreement with us.

But now the time has come to make our protest heardmore loudly still, and then even yet more loudly, so as to stop the action of this poisonbefore it has become as potent as the ancient heresies of Arianism, Nestorianism, orEutychianism, which in their time so shook the whole body of the Churchas to make it seem that heresy was apt to overcome Orthodoxy.

We direct our appeal to all the Bishops of theOrthodox Church, imploring them to study the subject of this letter and to rise up indefense of the purity of the Orthodox Faith. We also ask them very much to pray for theRussian Orthodox Church, so greatly suffering from the atheists, that the Lord mightshorten the days of her trial and send her freedom and peace.

Metropolitan PHILARET

In New York,
Sunday of the Sixth Ecumenical Council,
14/27 July, 1969