ROCOR

[Sean Kealey]

First let me say I hope that this does not lead to any arguments such as I saw on another Orthodox website. I was curious if someone could just inform me as to what they were arguing about. They were going back and forth as to the fact that ROCOR is not in communion with the whole Orthodox Church, but only with I believe the Serbian and Jerusalem patriarchate. There were accusations of ROCOR being in schism, and I was just curious as to why and what happened. They also mentioned that there is "peace talks" for lack of a better term. Again, just curious what happened. I don't want to start a fight between anyone, and if that will happen I would rather no one answer. I have yet to see anyone get in any "arguments" on this site, though. Disagreements, but not arguments. Thank you all.

Sean

[Baroness]

Firstly, I'll let someone else give you an answer. I belong to the ROCOR and understand what happened in history, but am very poor in explaining it all. Sorry. As I'm new to this all - does this mean that I would not be able to have Holy Communion say in a Greek Orthodox Church, or Antiochian if I were ever visiting?

[Alex Haig]

This is just a brief outline and I’m sure there are many here who can give a fuller history.

Following the Russian Revolution, the Bolshevik Government declared itself hostile to the Church so to preserve the Church in the diaspora some of the Bishops outside of Russia split away from the Patriarchate and formed a new Synod of Bishops. This is what today we call the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). Because the Church was formed by a declaration of independence there remains no formal communion between ROCOR and most of the other Orthodox Churches.

This situation has been preserved up until this day despite the fall of the Soviet Union. There has in recent years been dialogue between the Russian Patriarchate and ROCOR about a formal reunion – various models of reunification have been discussed including a complete reorganisation of the Church where there is one Russian diocese for a given area to ROCOR being made into a Metropolia of the Russian Patriarchate.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The canonical basis of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is the ukaz 362 of Holy Patriarch Tikhon of 1920 wherein he stated that in the extreme conditions of the Russian revolution all who found themselves cut off from the supreme authority (ie the Patriarchal administration) should turn to their local bishops for direction. Thus the seeds of what became the Church Abroad are to be found in the practical direction of the Patriarch concerning how the Church could maintain Her own life in circumstances of great uncertainty.

The above canonical direction was indeed put into affect by those bishops and faithful who found themselves in areas within Russia outside of Bolshevik control during the Civil War. As the Bolsheviks gradually triumphed through the whole of Russia these Orthodox fled accompanied by their bishops first to Constaninople then to Yugoslavia. It was in the latter location where the Church Abroad was transformed from an informal group of bishops and faithful fleeing for their lives and trying to maintain their faith into an actual distinct body or group referred to officially as the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or Church in Exile (some also say. 'the synod' to refer to the group of bishops who led this church). At various periods in her history Rocor has included in unity with her, other Russian Orthodox churches outside of Russia (these daughter churches of the Church in Russia include the Metropolia- OCA, and Paris jurisdiction of Russians with the Ecumneical Patriarchate) while at other times not.

A second major event which profoundly affected Rocor was the official statement of Metropolitan Sergios that the church within Russia accepted the Bolshevik government as the legitimate governing authority. The immediate affect of this was the issuing of a document which all church authorities even outside of Russia were to sign containing a pledge of loyalty to the Bolshevik authority with the further oath that all criticism of the regime would cease. Not surprisingly almost no-one outside of Russia would sign such a document whereupon a canonical separation from the Church within Russia followed. It should be noted however that written into the statutes of rocor itself is the understanding that the Church Abroad is not an autocephalous church (i.e independent). Rather its self-governing status is contingent on the Church in Russia not having her freedom. If the situation is to arise where freedom is to return to the Russian Church then rocor is obliged by her same founding documents to pursue reconciliation with the Church in Russia.

The character of rocor has been defined by the above experience to the extent that during the communist times she saw it as one of her chief responsibilities to witness how the Church within Russia was not free. This witness about the suffering Church of Russia also led rocor to openly proclaim and give testimony to the many new martyrs & confessors within Russia whose numbers even exceeded those of the ancient Roman times.

A second defining part of rocor's character comes from the hierarchs, priests and laity who founded her who had been profoundly affected by the spiritual/monastic/Patristic revival within the 19th century Russian Church. Thus rocor is often referred to as 'traditional'. In a way rocor's unique character comes from the way in which it has focussed its sense of traditional faithfulness through the prism of the turmoil of the 20th century.

The adherence to tradition however has always been the double-edged sword for rocor. On the one hand this can be part of a larger sense of witness to be not of this world while being in the world but on the other this can also be an opportunity for extremism. Indeed rocor has seen its fair share of both in the 70 or so years of its existence.

Now the Church Abroad stands at the threshold of the IV All-Diaspora Council (to be held in San Francisco, May 6-14, 2006) in which the major topic of reconciliation with the Church in Russia (the Moscow Patriarchate) will be taken up as well as her future direction. As many also outside of rocor have noted the resolutions taken at this Council and blessed by the synod of bishops immediately afterwards will likely have an effect far beyond that of rocor or the MP. Indeed it is possible that this may represent a healing within Orthodoxy at large after the incredible turmoil which the Church at large also suffered through in the 20th century. From this perspective then the recent events within rocor and the MP represent an opportunity for all of Orthodoxy if this is what God wills & blesses and we are faithful to.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: I will try after this to post some of the relevant statutes of rocor referred to above.

[Alec Lowly]

Not as though my opinion means much, but still, I would like to thank Father Raphael for his well-balanced and scrupulously fair "precis" on the ROCOR, and to commend this piece to anyone who wishes to learn about the Russian church in the 20th century. We are reaching the point, thank God, where people can start talking about this history from various perspectives and not start hurling anathemata at one another. Let us pray that the Church of Russia, at home and abroad, "attain to the unity of the faith."

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner
OCA

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Here are some of the relevant statutes I mentioned in my last post.

Resolution of His Holiness the Patriarch [ie Tikhon], of the Holy Synod & Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church 20/7 November 1920. Ukase No. 362

2)In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, [ie of the civil war that followed upon the 1917 revolution], changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Supreme Church Administration, or if the Supreme Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighbouring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Supreme Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else).

3) Care for the organization of a Supreme Church Authority as the objective of an entire group of dioceses which find themselves in the position indicated in paragraph 2, is the mandatory obligation of the senior bishop of such a group.

4) In the case of the impossibility of establishing relations with bishops of neighbouring dioceses, and until the organization of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes upon himself all the fullness of authority granted him by the canons of the Church, taking all measures for the ordering of Church life and, if it appears necessary, for the organization of the diocesan administration, in conformity with the conditions which have arisen, deciding all cases granted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of existing organs of diocesan administration (the diocesan assembly, the diocesan council, et al, or those that are newly organized); in case of the impossibility of constituting the above indicated institutions, he is under his own recognizance.


Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
1956 & 1964

1) The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the atheist government, is self-governing on conciliar principles in accordance with the resolution of the Patriarch, the Most Holy Synod, and the Highest Church Council of the Russian Church dated 7/20 November, 1920, No. 362

2) The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is comprised of those who are outside the borders of Russia and are guided by the lawful hierarchy of a diocese with their parishes, church communities, spiritual missions and monasteries.

3)The basic task of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is the preservation abroad of complete independence of the Russian Orthodox Church from atheistic and anti-Christian forces and the overall spiritual nourishment of the Orthodox Russian flock in the diaspora, independent of nationality; and in particular, the preservation and strengthening in the souls of the faithful flock the purity and wholeness of the holy Orthodox faith; and the encouragement of devotion in the flock, dispersed throughout the world, to the suffering Mother Church.

4)In her internal life and administration, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is guided by Holy Scripture and Tradition, by the Holy Canons and Church laws, the regulations and pious customs of the Church of Russia and, in particular, by the resolution of His Holiness the Patriarch [referred to above]...
------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this sheds some light on the matter.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Sandra June Hofstead]

I am a typical American citizen whose ancestors came to this country to flee intolerable situations in their former homelands or a some cases to take advantage of opportunities to have a better quality of life here. They all brought some form of Christain faith with them and worshipped here in freedom in the manner they brought with them. They frequently lived together in the same neighborhood. The small town where I now live is a classic example. Several Roman Catholic parishes founded by Irish, French Canadian and Italian immigrants, a Lutheran church founded by the Norwegians and an old Methodist and Congregationalist church all once flourished here. Ninty years ago Russian immigrants were able to get an Orthodox Church here too. Too this very day most locals refer to it as the "Russian Church". We try to downplay that reputation and assure inquirers into Orthodoxy that we are just ordinary local townfolk like they are. At present it is a mission status parish of the OCA and none of us are Russian immigrants. The few who have ethnic Slav roots are American citizens of parents or grandparents became American citizens. They didn't/don't want to move back to Russia (and they are all free to do it now). To me it makes perfectly good sense that the Orthodox Church in America should be autocephalous. This is a very large geographical area which is culturally very different from Russia, Greece or other countries whose immigrants established churches here. In all sincerity I do not understand how having a Patriarch who is a Russian or Greek or Turkish citizen is better that having one who is Canadian or American citizen. Perhaps I am missing the point altogether so I am asking. Do the members of Russian Chrurch Abroad or Outside Russia consider themselves still Russian refugees? Do they hope to return to their mother country so are avoiding inculturation for that reason? I can understand that since if I went to work or serve in some way temporarily in another country I would still consider myself American and retain that while I was abroad. And I have been in many situations of having replied to someone that I was Orthodox they asked Russian or Greek? When I said I am American and belong to Orthodox Church in America this was a real surprise to them. I would benefit from some feedback about this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sandra asked,


Do the members of Russian Chrurch Abroad or Outside Russia consider themselves still Russian refugees? Do they hope to return to their mother country so are avoiding inculturation for that reason?

The first thing to understand about the Church Abroad is that it has a very mixed membership; the original members who had left Russia during the revolution and civil war are long gone to receive their reward. Many of the next generation from the post-War (WWII) period were refugees from the Soviet Union or countries occupied by the Soviets, but many also were from communist China and yet others were from war ravaged western Europe. Also there were always among us the very same people as attended metropolia- ie future OCA- churches. Add to this that we are a church spread throughout the world with increasing numbers of converts who use the language of their own country and you can then see what a really diverse group we are. At our clergy conferences for example it is quite normal to have the older DP generation along with new Russians and also local converts- plus throw in the odd priest from Indonesia or Korea or Haiti...well you get the picture.

The reason why I began my answer to your question in the above way is to explain how we are not a church of refugees. Even most of the real refugees who arrived after WWII rapidly gave up any idea of returning & happily became citizens of their new countries. We are part of the Church of Russia but our character has been formed by how we found ourselves outside of Russia. Specifically this means that what ties such a diverse variety of people together is our common respect for both Russian spirituality & a sense of how this has been lived out here in the west.

To give a real example- in Tennessee there is a priest & faithful who operate primarily in English, run an English bookservice of Orthodox books and also are the mainstays for our vibrant mission in Haiti. Now scarcely a word of Slavonic or of Russian can be found there but yet without 'playing Russian' there is a real love for the Russian saints & spirituality- as well of course as Byzantine saints. And even though the name of their bookservice is that of St John of Kronstadt- a Russian saint- we also highly venerate St John Maximovitch- who reposed on these shores and Fr Seraphim Rose who was American.

Inculturation is indeed a delicate question for all of us who are Orthodox regardless of where we come from. We have in the Faith a priceless treasure which sets us apart from the standards of this world. Even while living amidst this world we are called to be not of this world. Yet we are not a cult but rather are to be a light unto the world. This calls then for a balance between our lives in the world and a vision of the Kingdom constantly before us. But the balance must definitely be tilted towards that of the Kingdom enlightening and inspiring our life in the world otherwise we are no longer living a life within the Church of Christ but merely a 'religious' life.

Orthodox Christians in recent times have come to a new appreciation of how there is something extremely valuable in the religious culture of their Mother Churches which helps one find the above balance. In a way this is coming full circle on ourselves but going a bit deeper. In the past many of our parishes were places of ethnic refuge with little sense of outreach or mission. But I think some of our assessments of this period were too harsh as if almost nothing of real faith existed in these parishes- after all these people also needed faith to survive the ordeal of emigration. And indeed many found Orthodoxy through this experience. So this first generation already must have been dealing with the question of how to lead an Orthodox life in a new land. Perhaps then what was needed was enough time for the whole Church to learn how to hand on this treasure of the Faith & how to receive it.

This treasure of faith is not primarily ethnic as if our calling is to 'become Russian' or 'become Greek'. On the other hand though we also can miss the mark if we pit faith so totally against the Russian or Greek part of what is Orthodoxy as if Russian Orthodoxy is just anBut on the But there is something of great worth within Russian or Greek Orthodoxy which helps anyone whether they be convert or homegrown Russian to anchor themselves in a lived faith. I would say that this recent realisation is to be found in all jurisdictions here in the west including the OCA.

In any case I believe that all of us as Orthodox Christians share these questions regardless of jurisdiction. And many of the answers we have worked out are closer than it may seem.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Alec Lowly]

Sandra Jane Hofstead writes:

"Perhaps I am missing the point altogether so I am asking. Do the members of Russian Chrurch Abroad or Outside Russia consider themselves still Russian refugees? Do they hope to return to their mother country so are avoiding inculturation for that reason?"

Great question, Sandra. Anybody care to weigh in?

In XC,
Alec Lowly, sinner

[Herman Blaydoe]

That is a difficult question to answer. Although not a member of ROCOR, I have attended several and have many ROCOR friends and acquaintances. One of the best sources of English translations of prayers, lives of the saints, and services for decades has been Holy Trinity ROCOR monastery. Some ROCOR churches are NOT "avoiding inculturation" since they serve almost exclusively in English and some OCA churches still serve either only Slavonic or have separate Slavonic and English services (including the national OCA Cathedral in Washington DC, St. Nicholas).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Herman wrote


Some ROCOR churches are NOT "avoiding inculturation" since they serve almost exclusively in English and some OCA churches still serve either only Slavonic or have separate Slavonic and English services (including the national OCA Cathedral in Washington DC, St. Nicholas).

To show just how complex the scene really is on the ground- here in Winnipeg at the local OCA church the parish is very Russian & the Russian priest is trying to learn English. Meanwhile at the 'Russian' rocor parish the priest speaks mainly English. We often kid each other about this reversal of roles.

Seriously though the point is that the complexity of Orthodoxy on the ground- eg there really are quite a few Russian parishes in the OCA and rocor has a large English/convert presence now- needs to be taken into account when discussing unity. In a way when you step back and look at the current scene in Orthodoxy this complexity can help us achieve unity; ie no jurisdiction is completely one-culture anymore.

[Sandra June Hofstead]

Thank you Father Raphael for your very inclusive comments on my questions about ROCOR. They have helped me to see the situation in a new light. Maintaining a connection to the "Mother Churches" out of respect and admiration of a common faith which was received from them seems reasonable. Especially since Orthodoxy is yet very newly established here in comparison to the over a millenium in Russia, Eastern Europe and Greece. We iconographers certainly look to (or should imho) the iconography that developed in these countries for inspiration .And I heartily agree with you that all of us Orthodox share the same basic challenge to live our faith in what seems to have been appropriately called the "post-Christian era" regardless of what jurisdiction we are in.

[Sean Kealey]

Thanks for all the info everyone. I am still curious if I were to go to Russia would I find a Serbian or Greek church, or are they all Russian? Again, I understand that we have so many cultures here and none of us are native to North America, with the exception I guess of the Native Americans, but I guess I look at America as a place of blending cultures, not keeping old cultures. I think as the generations pass that will happen and as was said earlier, we don't have much history here. 500 years really isn't a long time in the scheme of things and most of us don't have families that hve been here that long. Most of our families have probably not been here for more than a couple hundred years. But I have heard stories of Orthodox churches, pick a nationality, that have served more as a place to keep culture over against being a place of worship. Plenty of people I have talked to have said that they were not even able to be accepted into the church because they weren't of that nationality. They were more concerned about not "polluting" their culture.
So, though it will never happen here that there only be one National church, I didn't know if, as I asked earlier, I would find a Russian church in Antioch or Syria, etc.

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

I never been blessed with going to Russia. But judging by Romania, you will find Russian and Greek Churches. Also, in Istanbul if you can pull yourself away from Aghia Sofia and the other treasures, there is a Russian Parish (incredible choir) and naturally many Greek parishes, whom prefer the appellation Rum Orthodox.

In fact this entire Greek, Russian, Syrian etc., distinction, is not approved by monastics, we are Orthodox Christians, plain and simple. (It is, according to them, a Roman Catholic plot, to narrow our Blessed Church, to nationality, or ethnic groups - one must say they have been successful!)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Sean asked,


I am still curious if I were to go to Russia would I find a Serbian or Greek church, or are they all Russian?

There is nothing incorrect or against Orthodox practice in having within the borders of an autocephalous church parishes of other cultures. So within the Church of Russia there would be nothing wrong in having parishes of other cultures who live within Russia; in Georgia one could have churches which Russians attend and which use Slavonic, and within the Patriarchate of Alexandria (which is Greek)one could find parishes further south into Africa which use English, French or one assumes other local languages. So basically Orthodox practice is to allow the use of the language of the people in the particular parish.

This is one reason why the question of one independent Orthodox church in N America is so complex- while the surrounding culture may be 'North American' the culture of the parishioners may be quite different. And in Orthodox practice both of these realities need to be taken into account.

This question of culture however also involves the deeper question of values. The Mother Church has a heritage of a culture & values formed from the experience of -let's say the Greeks- almost 2000 years of Orthodoxy. Arriving here the Orthodox are surrounded by a western culture that can be very secular and even anti-Orthodox. So on the one hand there is properly a certain amount of adaptation to the surrounding culture. On the other hand there are aspects of the Orthodox culture of the Mother Church which help anchor the faithful in an Orthodox mind-set. For example someone may convert within a Serbian parish and never go beyond learning the most basic Serbian or Slavonic. They might however adopt the practice of having a family 'slava' or of going on pilgrimage to visit the holy places of Serbia. This is sort of thing, of 'connecting' to the reality of the church in a more Orthodox setting, is now very common among the Orthodox in the west.

So the question of an Orthodox church in N America is very complex with no easy answers. Certainly we know by now that there are two extremes that end up with something that mangles Orthodoxy out of shape- parishes which are mainly ethnic enclaves with little outreach, or parishes that have become too assimilated to western values. Interestingly in reality the two often go together- the more ethnic, the more worldly- and the more worldly the more ethnic (a parish can be very 'ethnic' even if its language and culture are local- just ask someone who visits from another place). Sometimes indeed ethnic is just a mask for a deeper kind of assimilation while assimilation becomes a mask for worldliness.

About ethnic parishes shutting the doors or not opening them. I think the reality is that each parish is different. There are some very sad stories out there but also many accounts of ethnic parishes that were open to others. On the one hand this can be much more challenging than a one-culture church but it can also be incredibly enriching in deepening one's Orthodox faith.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Baroness]

These posts are all very interesting to read, and I want to thank you all for sharing your thoughts and knowledge. As I said earlier, I attend an ROCOR church in Australia, and I hear differing opinions on whether we should or shouldn't join back up with the ROC. Some of the older generation - those that fled communisim etc. in the 40's and 50's - who are now in their later stages of life, in some ways don't want to see a join back to the ROC because 1) of what happened in the past; and 2) the fact that the ROC is still involved with the government. (Please excuse me if I've got all this wrong). Then some of the middle aged generation and younger are quite happy to be part of the ROC again. But then you have all different ages that will simply say, "I believe God is guiding our priests, so whatever the outcome - may God's will be done." It's an interesting time we live in.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear brothers & sisters in Christ,

The following is an actual post which has appeared on one of our rocor church lists. (as it was a public appeal to a public list I hope I am not breaking any rules by posting it here). I am posting it here only to illustrate how we face a common enemy - I mean 'the' enemy- who especially nowadays tries to keep people away from the Church by playing so skillfully on our weaknesses & divisions. This is why I feel it is so important to seize the opportunity of unity that we have been so wonderfully offered in recent times.

Anyway--here is the post...reading it deeply affected me.


Hi, my name is abc. I'm half Egyptian and half Russian. I was raised in the Coptic Orthodox Church and I'm trying to discover my Russian roots. So far, I've come to understand the differences between Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians. What I am interested in is now going to a Russian Orthodox Church. Some people have suggested the OCA, others ROCOR, still others the ROCiE in Canada. It all seems perplexing. One of the things brought up is that ROCOR and the OCA are
very liberal and no longer interested in Orthodox spirituality. Some tell me these groups have no grace and under canonical condemnation. I am perplexed: what do they mean? What do they mean when they say people are corrupt and stealing money and paying for their "friends"? I am tempted to go to the ROCiE, but my Russian is poor. Can someone
explain things to me?
Thank you (Spasi Vas!)
abc

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

'abc's' note clearly underlines the shifting and confusing nature of the epoch in which we live.

Though it was not posted at Monachos, I do believe Fr. Raphael has done us all a great service in bringing this very real situation to our attention.

In North America this is truly a bleeding wound. Twenty or more years ago, who would ever have imagined ROCOR and the O.C.A., grouped together, and 'without grace.' Truly astounding.

Once Bishop Seraphim (Storheim) our ruling Hierarch of the O.C.A. in Canada gave me the numerical account of Canonical (in Communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and by consequence all other Patriarchal Churches) as opposed to the number of non-canonical Bishops in North America. It was truly an astounding contrast. Canonical Bishops were vastly outnumbered.

It needs to be said that these so-called Bishops are often extremely gifted intellectually, and provide quotations from Scripture, the Fathers, Tradition, the Calendar issue, Ecumenism etc, which would make the head of even a Jehovah Witness' whirl.

Having encountered these 'Bishops' and their off-spring I have this to say. In the vast majority of cases they started out as Canonical Orthodox Christians, the Bishops were defroked by very conservative Canonical Bishops. They then formed their own Churches, most of whom are not in communion even with each other. The Etna Monastery went with a certain Bishop Cyprianos, who himself had been defroked by a very conservative Hierarch in the Greek Orthodox Church. He then joined one of the many 'Old Calendar' groups in Greece. In time he was defroked by them. What did he do? He formed his own 'Church.' Now he is well-known, has a very large Convent outside Athens and a somewhat smaller (number-wise) Monastery. From this battleship, twice defroked, he is now, by his own decree the 'Head Hierarch' representing the 'theology of resistance'.

A sad story, which continues to this very day. They are active in Romania, and are really a sight to behold. They build Monasteries very close to Canonical Monasteries and begin their mission work.

The monastics from this group I have met in Romania, are majority-speaking, suffering from some form of mental challenge.

They have few Bishops 'on the ground' in Romania (the last count was four.)

One has to weep, lament and pray for these poor souls. Yet despite prayers offered to our Lord for them, they continue to disillusion the common folk of Romania.

In Greece they are much more organized, and more numerous, and not in Communion with the Canonical Greek Orthodox Church, nor with each other. Truly, the work of the Devil.

The Devil loves division.

The Monastery of St. Gregory Palamas in California, (Etna) is a perfect example. Their American Hierarchs were originally with the Canonial Greek Archdiocese, and published remarkable, scholarly papers, in the Revues issued by Holy Cross Seminary, Boston, St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York amongst other scholarly works. Over time they found fault especially with ecumenism which they termed the 'heresy of all heresies'.

We are in the presence of these 'Bishops', intellectually they are formidable. Spriritually they are deluded to the extreme, prelest par excellence.

This is our spiritual podvig ecclesiastically. They divide and multiple more than the Protestants. A remarkable occurence, which sadly deceives many people.

I, personally, have a good friend whom I have known since 1975. He wandered from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Now he is a Bishop of HOCNA (The Holy Orthodox Church of North America.)

It is lamentable, tragic, yet nevertheless they are the Osmana bin Laden's (spiritually speaking) amongst us. Without apparent shame they present a version of Orthodoxy which is a perversion. The result is that many are deluded.

Let us pray for them - what else can you do?

[Anthony]

Now the Church Abroad stands at the threshold of the IV All-Diaspora Council (to be held in San Francisco, May 6-14, 2006) in which the major topic of reconciliation with the Church in Russia (the Moscow Patriarchate) will be taken up as well as her future direction.

It is wonderful to hear this. We wait in hope.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad website (http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/en/indexeng.htm)
has been completely redesigned in both English & Russian. There are a number of important articles already posted about the ongoing process of reconciliation which is leading up to the All-diaspora Assembly in San Francisco May 6-14.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

As several of you are probably aware the IVth All-Diaspora Assembly of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad gathers tomorrow in San Francisco. This will take place at the cathedral of the Mother of God Icon 'Joy of All Who Sorrow' where the relics of St John of Shanghai & San Francisco also lie. The main themes of this Assembly will be devoted to the question of canonical relations between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate & also to the future pastoral direction or witness of the Church Abroad.

One could say that this event is momentous in dealing with the tragic division between two parts of the Church of Christ. But it also is momentous in that these divisions reflect much deeper divisions in the Body of Christ that arose in the 20th century. So in this way the Assembly both reflects and will potentially affect the rest of the Church. It is for this reason that this gathering no matter what its outcome will certainly affect all of us in one way or another.

As we are are on the eve of the Assembly I ask all of you my dear brothers & sisters in Christ to keep the Assembly, its delegates, and the whole Church of Christ in your prayers.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
(clergy delegate for the western part of the Diocese of Canada)

PS: At the risk of embarrasing Fr David Moser I would ask that you keep him in your prayers as he is one of the clergy delegates also.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael and others,

You will all be in many people's prayers during the week of this Synod. Obviously, the discussions and decisions taking place there directly effect many of us.

May it be blessed.

XB, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

I'm sure it will be.

There is a good article at the below link.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enart_lardastalkmp.html

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Matthew Panchisin]

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/images/sfsat13.jpg


Here's our Father Raphael at the council upper far left.

[Matthew Panchisin]

I knew Father Raphael would straighten things out...


Here is the Resolution from the Council:

SAN FRANCISCO: May 11, 2006



We, the participants of the IV All-Diaspora Council, having gathered in the God-preserved city of San Francisco, in the blessed presence of the Protectress of the Russian Diaspora, the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, and the holy relics of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, in trembling recognition of the duty laid upon us, in obedience to our Archpastor, Christ, with complete trust and love of the pastors and laity to our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and the Council of Bishops, attest that as loyal children of the Holy Church, we shall submit to Divine will and obey the decisions of the forthcoming Council of Bishops.

We archpastors, pastors and laymen, members of the IV All-Diaspora Council, unanimously express our resoluteness to heal the wounds of division within the Russian Church—between her parts in the Fatherland and abroad. Our Paschal joy is joined by the great hope that in the appropriate time, the unity of the Russian Church will be restored upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ, opening for us the possibility to serve together and to commune from one Chalice.

Hearing the lectures read at the Council, the reports made by the Commission on negotiations with the corresponding Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the various points of view expressed during the discussions, we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force.

From discussions at the Council it is apparent that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation.

We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.

Bowing down before the podvig [spiritual feats] of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, glorified both by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Russian Church in the Fatherland, we see within them the spiritual bridge which rises above the abyss of the lethal division in the Russian Church and makes possible the restoration of that unity which is desired by all.

And we, the members of the IV All-Diaspora Council, address our brothers and sisters in the faith in our renascent Homeland with the Paschal hymns: "Pascha! Let us embrace each other joyously!"

[Father David Moser]

And now it is my joy to announce that an agreement between ROCOR and the MP has been reached and approved by the Synods of both ecclesastical bodies.

In English: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/9enaktko.html
In Russian: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/2006/9aktko.html

There is also a pastoral epistle to the flock of ROCOR elaborating on the decision.

In English: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/9enposlaniye.html
In Russian: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/2006/9poslaniye.html

What now remains is to set a date for the ceremonial signing of the agreement and the concelebrations of the first heirarchs. That should be settled by the end of the year (next Synod meeting is in December).

Glory to God!

Fr David Moser

[Ted Haverson]

My Name is Ted Haverson. I live in Rochester, NY. I have become disheartened by what some of the priests are saying about the true ROCOR. I hope to address these issues soon.

[Peter Farrington]

What do you mean by the True ROCOR?

I must admit that I have been rather confused over the last couple of weeks because I seem to have been added to a mailing list from a Subdeacon in a Church that seems to have been part of ROCOR but is now part of a resistance synod which opposes the union of ROCOR with the MP?

The website I keep being directed to suggests that a large number of ROCOR in the US oppose the union???

Is this so? Is this group the one you mean by True ROCOR?

How big is it compared to ROCOR in the US?

Is it also true that the ROCOR Lesna convent in Paris has left ROCOR and joined this resistance group over the union with the MP?

I find this very confusing, since I thought that ROCOR now supported the union with the MP?

Peter

[Father David Moser]

Ted

Welcome to Monachos. I have moved your post with questions about ROCOR into the appropriate discussion group (one specifically about ROCOR). Please ask your questions or make your observations about ROCOR whenever you are able. Both Fr Raphael and myself are ROCOR priests and have been members of this forum for some time. By coincidence we were both delegates to the IV All-Diaspora Sobor and so quite "up to date" on many of the recent events in ROCOR.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

What do you mean by the True ROCOR?

the "true ROCOR" is a phrase sometimes used by those who wish to imply that the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR are not the "true" ROCOR but have somehow abandoned the Russian Church. I don't know how Mr Haverson is using the phrase, but this is often how it is used.



I must admit that I have been rather confused over the last couple of weeks because I seem to have been added to a mailing list from a Subdeacon in a Church that seems to have been part of ROCOR but is now part of a resistance synod which opposes the union of ROCOR with the MP?

The website I keep being directed to suggests that a large number of ROCOR in the US oppose the union???

Is this so? Is this group the one you mean by True ROCOR?

How big is it compared to ROCOR in the US?

There have always been those who have opposed this direction of the Synod of Bishops. As time passes they are becoming fewer in number but more vocal. The vast vast majority of ROCOR clergy and laity are fully behind the movement of our Synod, there are only a few "naysayers" There are schismatic splinter groups (such as "ROCiE" or "ROAC") but these groups are themselves now splintering into warring factions are are almost down to nothing themselves.



Is it also true that the ROCOR Lesna convent in Paris has left ROCOR and joined this resistance group over the union with the MP?


This bit of news is unfortunately true - not unexpected, but true.



I find this very confusing, since I thought that ROCOR now supported the union with the MP?


You thought right. There is now no question that ROCOR and the MP will confirm the final Act of Canonical Communion in May of this 2007 and that Patriarch Alexey II and Metropolitan Lavr will concelebrate together to seal this signing. According to Metr. Kyrill of the MP the exact date on which that will occur is in conjunction with the feast of the Ascension 2007.

Fr David Moser

[Andrew]

You thought right. There is now no question that ROCOR and the MP will confirm the final Act of Canonical Communion in May of this year and that Patriarch Alexey II and Metropolitan Lavr will concelebrate together to seal this singing. According to Metr. Kyrill of the MP the exact date on which that will occur si in conjunction with the feast of the Ascension 2007.

Fr David Moser

How will the OCA factor into this? I hope the OCA and ROCOR can work together more closely in the future.

[Father David Moser]

How will the OCA factor into this? I hope the OCA and ROCOR can work together more closely in the future.

The OCA doesn't factor into this at all. The OCA is an autocephalus Church and the reconciliation is an internal matter of the Russian Church. Neither does the GOA, the AAOA, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate or any other independant Church factor into this.

That being said, now that our internal affairs are being put into order, it is likely that ROCOR will look to putting our external affairs (relationships with other national churches) into order.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father David,


That being said, now that our internal affairs are being put into order, it is likely that ROCOR will look to putting our external affairs (relationships with other national churches) into order.

That's already happing to a great extent here in the Chicago Diocese. About 2 years ago His Grace Bishop Peter and His Emminence Archbishop Alypy met with all the other Orthodox Bishops in the area. I would be remiss to mention
that Bishop Peter really has taken the initiative in that area. I recall being at a funeral for a Greek Orthodox Christian several years ago and the Greek Orthodox chancelor following the correct protocal had Bishop Peter pray the prayer of absolution, that wouldn't have happened not so long ago. Rocor's Bishops are always warmly embraced by other Orthodox Bishops these days. Bishop Ware met with Archbishop Alypy a year ago and was very moved by the conversations, clearly he saw the work of the Holy Spirit as reconcilation is at hand, thanks be to God.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Robert Hegwood]

If I may offer a few of my observations and comments as a convert within the OCA.

Much of my first exposure to Orthodoxy and Orthodox spirituality were in the context of Russian Orthodoxy and its daughter churches. I was received by one such daughter church, the Orthodox Church in Japan. It is an old calendar communion. When it was time for me to move back to the US I wondered which jurisdiction to align myself with. At heart I was with ROCOR and the "traditionalists" on most points, and did not want an Orthodoxy lite. But when I asked my priest he said I should try and find an OCA parish. That caused me a little turmoil because OCA worshiped primarily on the new calendar and I had and still have great reservations concerning it. But the priest who first help me find Orthodoxy told me to trust the path by which God led me to the faith. It may in time lead on to more rigourous quarters of the Orthodox life but it won't leap frog me there, so I should trust God's providience at each step. This advice kept me from running off to the Holy Mountian before I was even an official catechumen. So I remembered that advice and rather than contest what my priest in Japan said, having prayed about it I decided the best path was obedience and when I got back to the states I joined an OCA parish.

Calendar Issue: I've heard a number of things from both sides of this issue, everything from the new calendar is an anathemized papist vehicle and all who use it fall under that anathema to the Church has always preferred the civil and liturgical calendar coincide. I have heard the critiques about the new calendar about the way it mars the liturgical year...especially with how some years it can all but obliterate the Apostles fast. And I've heard that within certain restraints the caldendar belongs to the realm of espiscopal authority.

And then there is the history of the implementation of the new calendar...there my mind is pretty much made up...I'm on the side of the Old Calendarists. How the NC was come up with and especially how it was imposed was less than Orthodox by any standard that I've ever seen. It was a ham handed operation from the inception. But poor administrative proceedure does not equate with heresy.

Now I don't know enough to sort though these things. Each person you talk to sounds right at the time. But once thing I've learned to be wary of from reading Church history is what I call the "cathari syndrome"....the desire to be so pure so refined in one's spiritual life it becomes disembodied and distorted. The donatists are good examples of the mindset to avoid. In the particulars of their offence against compromisers they were on the whole right...in the pastoral response they adopted (kick'em all out) they were manifestly wrong (where are they today?). And certain traditionalist arguements against the New Calendar struck me as in tone as having a lot in common with donatism. The hoi poloi of the compromisers and the half hearted were just too impure to remain in communion with and so the walls of seperation had to go up...just like in the time of St. Maximus.

The best summation of the Old Calendar/New Calendar problem was summed up for me by Elder Cleopas. He saw the holy light shining out of the chalice one Liturgy in which he served and saw that grace was with the NC churches. He said, that the decision to go to the NC as it was done was a bad decision, and that it was handled in a bad way, and those hierarchs responsible for it would answer for it, but for all that the church calendar was under the authority of the bishops and that our part was to obey.

The MP: The other area that used to give me some pause was the charges of collaberation between the MP and the Soviets and especially what the aftereffects were in the Russian Church of Patriarch Sergius unfortunate remarks for which his memory has been censured ever since. The charge was that Patriarch Sergius had gone too far and fallen into apostasy and all those who remained in communion with him or with those in communion with him took part in that apostasy. On the surface that made a certain amount of sense...but from what I read of Church problems in Byzantine history made me wonder if things were that bad with his case. Emperor and Roman families used to play spin the patriarch all time. It was a terrible and lamentable thing to be sure...but while individual men may have been remembered as being fallen that didn't necessarily mean the whole of their synod likewise fell.

Also if I recall the monastic prophecies concerning the restoration of a good Czar to Russia one of the things he is supposed to do is clean house in the Russian Church and get rid of unfaithful or lukewarm heirarchs and replace them with better more pious souls. If that is the case then the Official Russian Church of the MP despite its wounds must remain "canonical". Cleaning house is not the same as building a new one....its fixing and better ordering something that is already in place. The prophecies don't say he will make the underground Church the official Church rather he will deal with problems in the existing Church.

So that means...at least to me...that despite certain reservations, I can't write off the MP, and that ROCOR is not wrong to begin a dialogue for reunification.

The Future: But once that is done what happens? Does the OCA and ROCOR then fold into one Jurisdiction again? I think it should...and I would hope the conservatism of the ROCOR synod would filter back into some areas of the OCA...maybe they could find a diocese by diocese resolution to the calendar issue. Then maybe it will be time to talk earnestly with the Antiochians about union.

[Father David Moser]

Rocor's Bishops are always warmly embraced by other Orthodox Bishops these days.

Not exactly true here in the west - there are still circumstances where "other Orthodox Bishops" continue to rebuff overtures by "Rocor's Bishops".

Fr David Moser

[Michael Astley]

Thank you Father Raphael for your very inclusive comments on my questions about ROCOR. They have helped me to see the situation in a new light. Maintaining a connection to the "Mother Churches" out of respect and admiration of a common faith which was received from them seems reasonable. Especially since Orthodoxy is yet very newly established here in comparison to the over a millenium in Russia, Eastern Europe and Greece. We iconographers certainly look to (or should imho) the iconography that developed in these countries for inspiration .And I heartily agree with you that all of us Orthodox share the same basic challenge to live our faith in what seems to have been appropriately called the "post-Christian era" regardless of what jurisdiction we are in.

Dear Sandra,

God bless you for producing icons for the faithful to venerate.

May I be so bold as to ask that, while you look towards the venerable tradition of the East for inspiration for your icons that you not forget the wonderful treasury of inconography that developed in the Orthodox West before the Schism? So many iconographers neglect this noble tradition and it is a sore shame. The result is that we often find such Saints as Ss Patrick, Colman, Aidan, George, David, &c. depicted in Eastern Vestments, in a Byzantine iconographic style and it just seems so very out of place in the same way that it would seem bizarre to depict St John Chrysostom in Western vestments, in a British iconographic style.

A few iconographers have lately begin to resuscitate the simplistic British and Western European style of iconography, and have depicted Western Saints in the vesture that they actually would have worn, and the results are truly awe-inspiring. Aidan Hart (http://www.aidanharticons.com/) is one such iconographer. I think that it attests to the catholicity of our Church that she embraces within her bosom all of these various traditions united in the same Faith and, as an orthodox Christian here in britain, I would love to be able to more readily purchase and venerate icons that are in an Orthodox style indigenous to this part of the world. Would that more of our iconographers would make use of this style!

Perhaps something to think about.

[John Charmley]

Now I don't know enough to sort though these things. Each person you talk to sounds right at the time. But once thing I've learned to be wary of from reading Church history is what I call the "cathari syndrome"....the desire to be so pure so refined in one's spiritual life it becomes disembodied and distorted. The donatists are good examples of the mindset to avoid. In the particulars of their offence against compromisers they were on the whole right...in the pastoral response they adopted (kick'em all out) they were manifestly wrong (where are they today?). And certain traditionalist arguements against the New Calendar struck me as in tone as having a lot in common with donatism. The hoi poloi of the compromisers and the half hearted were just too impure to remain in communion with and so the walls of seperation had to go up...just like in the time of St. Maximus.



Dear Robert,

A most thoughtful and interesting post, which for those coming from the outside, made many things comprehensible in a way they have not always been - so thank you.

I have highlighted this one passage of particular interest because it does seem to point to a continuing tendency in the Church. Although, of course, at one level there was no 'gnostic' movement, many of the teachings which appear grouped under that head were of the sort you mention. Time and again this tendency has appeared, and it is as real now as it was in the time of the early Church.

It would seem almost as though it is one of the main ways the Evil One plays to our human pride and arrogance, turning the message of redemption and salvation to all to a narrow way known only to the congnoscenti. Several times I have been struck by a spirit of exclusivity of a sort which a British aristocrat dating his ancestry to the Conquest would be hard put to match.

The Incarnate Lord, of course, knew all this better than we did. John 9:16 has one of my favourite examples of the perils of this attitude:


16 Therefore some of the Pharisees said, This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? And there was a division among them.


St. Paul, who also saw plenty of this sort of thing, told the Galatians plainly enough: [Galatians 6:12-16]


6:12 As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these would compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
6:13 For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh.
6:14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.
6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.


The Incarnate Lord summed up such attitudes perfectly in the parable in Luke 18:

18:10 Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.
18:12 `I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.'
18:13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted


Holy Tradition, as ever, is a sure guide to this particular temptation, and to Our Lord's view of it.

In Christ,

John

[Anthony Peggs]

Father, Bless,

i'm new to these discussions and am a Catechumen here in California at a Greek Parish........what you said worried me and so i ask:

how do you know who is in Communion?

[Kosta]

Dear Anthony,
Regardless as to what the various jurisdictions teach; about whose canonical or not, whose schismatic or not and/or whose heretical or not, their are some Orthodox Churches which are not in communion with others. Only by researching a seperated synod and why it has seperated from its mother church can one reach a conclusion whether it is for legitimate reasons or not.

There are canons which allow for seperation, the seeker must determine whether the situation falls under those canons or whether the seperation is over false reasons.

To be canonical simply means; to be under a Right-Believing bishop with apostolic succession faithful to Orthopraxis.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father, Bless,

i'm new to these discussions and am a Catechumen here in California at a Greek Parish........what you said worried me and so i ask:

how do you know who is in Communion?

Are you sure you didn't mean to ask Fr David about this? Fr Seraphim hasn't to my knowledge posted to this thread.

Or perhaps you could more fully describe what worries you and others could try to answer also.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

I'm not sure how to answer this question. If you are a catechumen in a particular parish, and you want to know about whether you could receive communion in some other particular parish, well then the best thing is to ask your own priest about that parish.

At present the Russian Church Outside Russia and the Russian Church inside Russia are technically "separated" and do not concelebrate or share a common litugical or sacramental prayer. However, that separation was due to the domination of the Church inside russia by the atheistic soviet authority. But that authority is no longer in power and the domination is ended and by God's grace these two parts of the Russian Church will soon re-establish their proper relationship. As for the relationship between the Greek Church and the Russian Church - in this country it has been strained at times, but never broken off entirely. One of the factors that has strained our relationships with the other national churches has been our own internal disorder. Once that is resolved, it is expected that any irregularities that still exist between the Russian Church and the other national Churches here in the diaspora will fade away and our relationship will find an equilibrium.

Fr David Moser

[Anthony Peggs]

Bless, Father

i really just want to make sure i'm in a canonical church.

Kissing your right hand,

Anthony

[Anthony Peggs]

Bless, Father

Hi Father David, how come some have said that ROCOR was out of communion? from what i've read it seems to be in Communion.

Kissing your right hand,

anthony

[Father David Moser]

how come some have said that ROCOR was out of communion?

Well, I guess you'd have to go to the people that said that and ask them how they came to that mistaken conclusion.

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

Bless, Father

i really just want to make sure i'm in a canonical church.

Kissing your right hand,

Anthony

As long as your church is headed by a right believing bishop with apostolic succession following proper praxis, and you gather together & partake of that Gift; the Holy Eucharist, which unites all Orthodox christians regardless of juridiction and synod and calendar, your in good shape.
This is the only canonicity you need to worry about.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

, I think we do need to face the fact that ROCOR was never intended as a permanently separate ecclesiastical body, and the necessity for its existence as such no longer exists. Now that the fullness of communion has been restored, canonically, what should happen is that, in time, and with pastoral sensitivity, we should be absorbed into the autocephalous churches of the places where we find ourselves.

Dear Michael,

I disagree about the fading need for ROCA's continuing existence and see it is just as necessary as in the past. The fact is that the thousands of new Russian immigrants in the West are flowing into the Russian Church Abroad. This is where they feel their deepest spiritual connections.

Talke my country - New Zealand. We have 4 Russian Church Abroad parishes. When I became parish priest 30 years ago each parish had a membership of just a handful of people.

Since perestroika and emigration out of Russia, we have moved up into the thousands.

My home parish, Wellington (maybe 30 members in 1990) - now up to 2,000 members

Christchurch (50 members in 1990) - now 3,000

Auckland (100 members in 1990) now 5,000.

(These figures are all rounded off for convenience.)

So you can see that we are expanding rapidly and we hope to expand more because, as well as the churched people who have swelled our numbers already, there is around the same numbers again who are unchurched immigrants and who can, we hope, be brought into the Church over time.


Then same has happened in Australia, with even greater numbers involved.

So we have truly become the Russian PATRIARCHAL Church Abroad and our existence, to serve the spiritual neds of these Russian people, is just as necessary as that of the Greeks or Lebanese who are serving their own people around trhe world.

Thanks to the arrival of these immigrants our clergy numbers have gone up. For 30 years it was only me running around the country! Now we have 2 priests from Russia (and another one due to arrive) and 1 from Australia.

It's all good. :)

[Andreas Moran]

It may be that the reason so many Russians now attend ROCOR churches is that since the re-union of ROCOR and MP, Russians from Russia, such as my wife, will now go to a ROCOR church whereas they would not have done before; plus, a ROCOR church may be the most convenient or only Russian church available.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

It may be that the reason so many Russians now attend ROCOR churches is that since the re-union of ROCOR and MP, Russians from Russia, such as my wife, will now go to a ROCOR church

In this diocese (Australia and New Zealand) the Church division did not impact on us. The new wave of immigration began about 1994, which is 13 years before the union. There was no hesitation about welcoming them and nor did they stand back. They were quite happy to attend our churches. In fact they very quickly began to dominate in the choirs and to be elected to our Parish Councils. It was something wonderful to see - brother met brother with a kiss of peace, immigrants from the 1950s and immigrants from the 1990s.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Even though our diocese had a very radical reputation on the MP issue I think that all of our parishes grew during the last 10-15 years due to the arrival of new Russians. Our parish for example has just about quadrupled in size in the last 10 years. However reconciliation did add somewhat to our numbers- there were some new Russians who only began attending once reconciliation occurred.

An added change brought by reconciliation however has been the attendance/association with our parish of more Orthodox of other jurisdictions than previously. This ranges from attendance at our services to participation in the sacraments.

To my way of thinking this has helped situate us as an indigenous part of the larger Orthodox Church. It has not taken anything essential from our character but rather improved it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[RichardWorthington]

In this diocese (Australia and New Zealand) the Church division did not impact on us. The new wave of immigration began about 1994, which is 13 years before the union. There was no hesitation about welcoming them and nor did they stand back. They were quite happy to attend our churches. In fact they very quickly began to dominate in the choirs and to be elected to our Parish Councils. It was something wonderful to see - brother met brother with a kiss of peace, immigrants from the 1950s and immigrants from the 1990s.

"In fact they very quickly began to dominate in the choirs and to be elected to our Parish Councils": Thank you for posting this. Coming from a jurisdiction that is still reverberating from a recent split due - it seems to me - precisely from fears of being 'taken over' it is nice to hear of a harmonious coming together.

Pray for us - all of us in both jurisdictions involved!

Richard