Synods of the Historical ROCOR on the non-canonicity of that organization which calls itself the Moscow Patriarchate
The Resolution of the Synod of the ROCOR in 1928:
July 28, 1928 - (O.S.) Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky issues an “Open Epistle” (No. 892), signed by all the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR, concerning the Sergian and Evlogian schisms. In this epistle there is enunciated a judgment on “Metropolitans Sergius and Evologius, who have now fallen away from the saving unity of the Church and have bound themselves to the enemies of Christ and of the holy Church ... the Bolsheviks and the Jews who stand at the head of the Bolsheviks’ kingdom! ... that illegally formed organization which has entered into union with God’s enemies, which Metropolitan Sergius calls an Orthodox Synod - but which the best Russian hierarchs, clergy, and laymen have refused to recognize - this organization must not be recognized by our Orthodox Churches, nor by our Synod of Bishops with its flock here abroad. Furthermore, the organizers of the Moscow Synod must be recognized to be exactly the same sort of apostates from the Faith as the ancient libellatici ... real apostates from the Faith of Christ! Let us hold fast to our holy Orthodox Church and not enter into communion in prayer with those who are so poorly grounded in Her, that they express sentiments of loyal submission to Her enemies.” [Zhiznopisaniye Blazhenneishago Mitropolita Antonyia, Vol. 7, pp.218-223]
[Another reference to this Synodal ruling of 1928 reads as follows:] Metropolitan Anthony in his encyclical of 1928, which proclaimed “the completely definitive declaration of our Synod of Bishops that the Moscow Synod has deprived itself of all authority, since it has entered into agreement with the atheists, and without offering any resistance it has tolerated the closing and destruction of the holy churches, and the other innumerable crimes of the Soviet government… That illegally formed organization which has entered into union with God’s enemies, which Metropolitan Sergius calls an Orthodox Synod – but which the best Russian hierarchs, clergy and laymen have refused to recognize … must not be recognized by our Orthodox Churches, nor by our Synod of Bishops with its flock here abroad. Furthermore, the organization of the Moscow Synod must be recognized to be exactly the same sort of apostates from the Faith as the ancient libellatici that is, Christians who although they refused to blaspheme openly against Christ and offer sacrifices to the idols, nevertheless still received from the priests of the idols false documents verifying that they were in complete accord with the adherents of pagan religion…”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from the Resolution of the Synod of the ROCOR (Dec. 18/31, 1969):
"First, the Synod of Bishops considers it its duty to draw attention to the fact that the present official leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate, as set up by the Soviet government which is inimical to the Faith, is not the true representative of the Russian Church, and thus its acts have no canonical force and will not be binding upon any future All-Russian Ecclesiastical authority, when, by the grace of God, one such is re-established in Russia. An agreement on the part of the present Moscow Patriarchate to any autocephaly whatsoever by no means constitutes an agreement of the actual Russian Church, which, as a result of persecutions, has been left without a head, and is deprived of the possibility of freely expressing her will. On its every act inevitably lies antichrist's seal of an approval from the atheist regime, especially when such acts concern external affairs."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resolution of the Synod of the ROCOR in 1971: Concerning the Election of Pimen (Isvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow
I. For the election of the Primate of a Local Church it is essential that such an election take place according to the laws of the given Church and that it be free, representing a genuine expression of her voice.
2. In 1917 the All-Russian Council adopted a resolution restoring the Patriarchate in Russia, and elected to the Patriarchal See His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. This council included all canonically consecrated bishops of the Russian Church, representatives of the monastic clergy and the Orthodox Theological Academies, invited by the Synod on the basis of the Regulation it had issued. All the representatives of the diocese were chosen freely at elections on three levels: parish elections, deanery elections and diocesan meetings. The actual election of the Patriarch took place in a fashion that guaranteed freedom in the nominating of candidates for election. The latter were established by a secret ballot, and at first a large number of candidates were named. From among them, by systematic balloting, the three who received the highest number of votes were picked, and of those one was finally elected by the drawing of lots. This system of election, guaranteeing complete freedom and confirmed by the All-Russian Church Council, was never abolished by a free council of equal authority. Therefore, and election of Patriarchs effected otherwise and not in a free manner, does not express the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church and is not lawful. Not only the election of the present Pimen, who claims to be Patriarch, but those of his two predecessors must also be regarded as unlawful. Their supporters can not defend these elections by saying that the external conditions caused by persecutions against the Faith prevented the realization of a lawful form of election, since, despite the obvious, they constantly insist on the supposed full religion's freedom in the Soviet Union. Similar decisions were made the now elected Patriarch Pimen. At all three patriarchal elections, no one attempted or had any possibility of nominating a candidate other than the one indicated beforehand by representatives of the secular authorities.
3. The lawful succession of higher Church authority in the Russian Church has been broken since 1927, when the Acting Locum-Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny-Novgorod, went against the order of the Metropolitan of Krutitsa whom he was replacing and signed an agreement with the atheistic secular authorities, to which neither Metropolitan Peter nor the other elder hierarchs agreed. The Soviet government began to throw all the hierarchs who did not agree with Metropolitan Sergius in prison, thus clearing the path for him to become head of the Russian Church.He, for his part, taking no account of the elder bishops, formed a Synod by his own personal choice and, while Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, to whom by position the Moscow diocese belonged, was still alive, he unlawfully gave himself the title of "His Beatitude the Metropolitan of Moscow" with the right to wear two panagias. In 1943, by order of the atheist and the malicious persecutor of the Church, Stalin, he hurriedly (in four days) pulled together, in fulfillment of the latter's political plans, a Council consisting of bishops specially chosen and freed from prison for the purpose by Stalin, a Council which, counting Metropolitan Sergius, himself, consisted of only 19 bishops, and which elected him Patriarch. In 1945, after the death of Patriarch Sergius, Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad gathered a Council, to which representatives of the other autocephalous Churches were also invited. This Council, besides recently consecrated bishops, consisted of representatives of the clergy and laity, picked without elections and prepared for the election of a Patriarch, and, submissively following the directions of the atheistic authorities, unanimously elected as Patriarch Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad. After his death, in the same illegal manner the so-called All-Russian Council was convoked this year for the election as Patriarch of Metropolitan Pimen, known not so much for his devoutness or theological education, but rather for his diligence in carrying out the orders of the atheistic government, which are directed toward the destruction of the Church and toward fulfilling the political plans of the Soviet Regime.
4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them Episcopal authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicated along with all those in communion with him". The significance that the Fathers of the 7th Council gave to such an offense is obvious from the very fact of a double punishment for it, that is, not only deposition but excommunication as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law. The famous commentator on Canon Law, Bishop Nicodemus of Dalmatia, gives the following explanation of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles: "If the Church condemned unlawful influence by the secular authorities in the ordination of bishops at a time when the rulers were Christians, then it follows that She should condemn such action all the more when the latter are pagans and place even heavier penalties on the guilty parties, who were not ashamed of asking for help from pagan rulers and the authorities subordinated to them, in order to gain the episcopate. This (30th) Canon has such cases in view". If in defense of this position examples are given of the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were placed on the Throne at the caprice of the Turkish Sultans, one can reply that no anomaly can be regarded as a norm and that one breach of Canon Law cannot justify another.
Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the representative of the free part of the Russian Church, determines:
The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russias at the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow the 2nd of June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be regarded as unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having no strength.