Moscow and ROCOR

[Marcos G.]

Dear Friends,

There is news of the Rocor Council having voted for reunion with the Moscow Patriarchate at http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/. I am wondering if anyone has any comments and/or information as to the timing of the reunion. Will it be this year or next? I understand there are some details yet to be worked out. I would be glad to hear about this. When this reunion takes place it would appear that something will have to be done about a relationship with the OCA since both churches will be in communion with Moscow and it would not be right for them to not be in communion with each other (rocor and oca). Thanks,
Marc

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Friends,

There is news of the Rocor Council having voted for reunion with the Moscow Patriarchate at http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/. I am wondering if anyone has any comments and/or information as to the timing of the reunion. Will it be this year or next? I understand there are some details yet to be worked out. I would be glad to hear about this. When this reunion takes place it would appear that something will have to be done about a relationship with the OCA since both churches will be in communion with Moscow and it would not be right for them to not be in communion with each other (rocor and oca). Thanks,
Marc


Rather than 'reunion' maybe it's best to think of this as the canonical reconciliation of two of the previously separated parts of the one Russian Orthodox church- the Moscow Patriarchate & the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The main point is that if this reconciliation is achieved rocor will have a great degree of administrative, liturgical and pastoral independence in relation with the MP. At the same time rocor will also have a unique canonical relationship to the MP that will be closer than with any other Orthodox church.

The question of timing has not been specifically spelled out in a public way yet. In general what we do know is that the committees for unity will meet again; then at some point the contents of the Act of Canonical Union will be made public; and presumably after this at some suitable time there will be ceremony that would represent the culmination of this process upon which celebrating at one Altar and partaking of the One Cup would be possible.

The main reason why the schedule for this is still vague is that reconciliation has always been part of an ongoing process that would not be served (it probably would even be harmed) by being forced into an exact timetable.

I don't think our church has said anything official yet about its relationship with the OCA and the other Orthodox churches. In general we have seen more of a reaching out to other Orthodox than previously but so far this has been mainly on an informal personal level.

It could be that with the possiblity of rocor's new relationship with the MP there would be a canonical responsability in regards to the other Orthodox Church such as the OCA also. This rests mainly however on the signifance of the rocor- MP reconciliation and whether this is the resolution of only local issues between two parts of the Church or whether it represents a greater change within the whole Church itself. Ultimately the question of canonicity cannot be separated from this larger question the purpose and meaning of what we see before us.


I also think it would be good to hear from others on this issue since invariably each of us has a bit of our own take on the meaning of what is happening. There is risk of getting more confused but hopefully you'd also get a clearer idea of the larger picture.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your above thoughts on the 'things in the air' following the recent sobor in San Francisco. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others also on these things.

As to the specific question of canonical relations (as raised by Floridian): unless - and this would be most peculiar - the rapprochement of the ROCOR and the MP were to be a restoration of communion only between those two bodies, the question of restored communion with the other Orthodox churches would follow normal lines (the only exception I've ever heard of to the normal pattern has been vis-a-vis relations with the church of Serbia in the past). As such, that would normally mean that a restoration of communion between the ROCOR and the MP would equate also to a restoration of communion between those bodies and all others with whom they are individually already in communion.

XB, Matthew

[Alec Lowly]

Although I thank the Lord for this wonderful reconciliation of Orthodox with Orthodox, I remain very confused, and I daresay others may feel the same.

Is there to be one Russian church, or two?

If there is to be one, then what is this "autonomy," and why? The Russian church is finally free. Why, then, should there exist a Russian church "outside of Russia," established in many places on the canonical territory of another church, except to minister to members of the one and only Russian church who happen to find themselves abroad -- in other words, a network of metochion churches, by Russians for Russians?

Or are there to be two Russian churches, one of them ministering to hosts of non-Russian converts? If so, would somebody explain to me the canonicity of this arrangement?

[Olga]

Dear Alex

One practical reason for an "autonomous" status of ROCOR is the need for an accommodation of the hierarchy of both churches. My understanding (and, please, those who are more knowledgeable than myself, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, should reconciliation occur, there would have to be a parallel hierarchy which, with time, will graduably be absorbed into a single hierarchy. Think of the chaos that would occur should, for instance, all the current serving ROCOR bishops be turfed out and replaced with MP clergy. It wouldn't work on a spiritual or practical level.

[Marcos G.]

Father bless,

Your reply was clear and most helpful. Reconciliation is a good word to explain what is going on; yet, I would say that when two parts or pieces of one entity have been separated and are reunited, "reconciled," there is reunion. We know that there has been "walling off" and no "communion" for a long time, so reconciliation and reunion between the two entities of the one Russian Church is a good thing in the interest of Catholicity and Orthodoxy.
Feast of Sts Cyril and Methodius,
Floridian

[Marcos G.]

Dear Alex

One practical reason for an "autonomous" status of ROCOR is the need for an accommodation of the hierarchy of both churches. My understanding (and, please, those who are more knowledgeable than myself, correct me if I'm wrong) is that, should reconciliation occur, there would have to be a parallel hierarchy which, with time, will graduably be absorbed into a single hierarchy. Think of the chaos that would occur should, for instance, all the current serving ROCOR bishops be turfed out and replaced with MP clergy. It wouldn't work on a spiritual or practical level.

Dear in Christ, Olga,

Yes, the need for administration remains and I would suppose that somehow there would be a united synod of bishops including the Moscow Patriarchal bishops. A dual administration would be confusing but perhaps necessary for a short time in order to bring about some harmony. There are not many MP churches in the United States and I wonder whether there would be a name change (rocor), but even a name change would not seem necessary because roca or rocor expresses and identifies the entity.

Regards in Christ,
Floridian

[Marcos G.]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your above thoughts on the 'things in the air' following the recent sobor in San Francisco. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others also on these things.

As to the specific question of canonical relations (as raised by Floridian): unless - and this would be most peculiar - the rapprochement of the ROCOR and the MP were to be a restoration of communion only between those two bodies, the question of restored communion with the other Orthodox churches would follow normal lines (the only exception I've ever heard of to the normal pattern has been vis-a-vis relations with the church of Serbia in the past). As such, that would normally mean that a restoration of communion between the ROCOR and the MP would equate also to a restoration of communion between those bodies and all others with whom they are individually already in communion.

XB, Matthew

Hello, Matthew,

I believe the present concern is only between the MP and ROCOR. Of course the consideration of other churches is always present as it should be. Certain problems will remain for ROCOR regarding relations with other churches that have adopted the new calendar and are committed to ecumenism. I do not foresee for the immediate future any involvement with SCOBA in America, but that may eventually happen. I believe the MP is not part of SCOBA so the ROCOR could continue along as it is now with the difference being they have "reconciled" with the Mother Church in the homeland.

Respectfully,
Floridian

[M.C. Steenberg]

I believe the present concern is only between the MP and ROCOR. Of course the consideration of other churches is always present as it should be. Certain problems will remain for ROCOR regarding relations with other churches that have adopted the new calendar and are committed to ecumenism.

Should the motions of reconciliation move along any lines that do not correspond to the relations with other churches in communion with the MP, it will be far from a canonical restoration.

To be in communion with a local Orthodox Church is, by all standards of Orthodox ecclesiology, to be in communion with all those local Churches with whom that Church is in communion. There it is not normally possible to say, 'I am in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, but not the Ecumenical Patriarchate', since the EP is in communion with the MP.

XB, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Reconciliation means full communion with all the Orthodox Patriarchates. The very notion of selecting by some isolated self defined criteria whom one will be in communion with within Orthodoxy is not Orthodox and reduces the universal nature of the Church. The Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and her members are in communion with one another, catholicity, which is not supposed to be full of woe, loathsome or reluctantly embraced. A luke warm disposition was not what I read in the documents coming from the council, thanks be to God.

ROCOR will have a local Synod without Moscow Patriarchal bishops involved in the administration of the Church abroad. The basic agreement being the Bishops of the local Church abroad know the concerns of their flock directly hence they will not be the recipients of directives from Moscow. Our Bishop's will also participate with or be a part of Moscow's Synod. So it will be a single hierarchy as it must be but not a overly administratively centralized hierarchy in Moscow. After all, Moscow knows little of the needs of the flock in Chicago.

Interesting enough the calendar issue was originally a problem not so much in terms of dates which was also a concern but rather mostly in terms of pastoral concern. The older Bishop's worried that the people would not fast etc. with the alteration.

On a laity level communion already exists within world Orthodoxy, it is the clergy that had been out of communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

It seems the ecumenism issue may work out. Perhaps Moscow will pull out of the dreaded WCC. It is interesting to ponder a body which the Serbian Orthodox Church is still involved with for the benefit of the Serbian people. So what is the reality of the criteria that has been used retrospectively for communion? Which Church thinks more or less in the same way about everything? The doctrines of the Orthodox Church are that which we all share, if ecumenism explained and understood is determined within Orthodoxy to be a heresy, then so be it. We must keep in mind that even Jerusalem is involved in the WCC. It seems to me that the real question is what is ecumenism exactly? Moscow has made clear her understandings as has ROCOR's council, the latter mentioning that it "evokes confusion among our clergy and flock."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your above thoughts on the 'things in the air' following the recent sobor in San Francisco. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others also on these things.

As to the specific question of canonical relations (as raised by Floridian): unless - and this would be most peculiar - the rapprochement of the ROCOR and the MP were to be a restoration of communion only between those two bodies, the question of restored communion with the other Orthodox churches would follow normal lines (the only exception I've ever heard of to the normal pattern has been vis-a-vis relations with the church of Serbia in the past). As such, that would normally mean that a restoration of communion between the ROCOR and the MP would equate also to a restoration of communion between those bodies and all others with whom they are individually already in communion.

XB, Matthew

I agree with this but I have to stress that this is my own personal opinion since our church has not given any official statement about this. Except as I say for personal actions of many within our church including our metropolitan and bishops which I do feel allows for a certain amount of reading between the lines as to our official intentions.

There are canonical norms within the One Orthodox Church which oblige each part of the Church towards communion with the other except in cases of grave dogmatic or canonical infraction. There is also the reality, canonical also I think, which means that each part of the Church governs its actions not only by its own interests but also by the wider consensus of the Church.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

Is there to be one Russian church, or two?
In Russian:

http://www.gazeta.ru/2005/07/27/oa_165450.shtml

In English:

The Orthodox Will Have One Patriarch and Two Sets of Statutes

Pavel Korobov, exclusively for Gazeta.ru

The fifth round of talks between the Commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC/MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) concluded in Moscow. The Secretary of the ROCOR Commission, Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, spoke to Gazeta.ru on what was accomplished.

–The Commissions of the ROC and ROCOR on overcoming the differences between the two branches of the Russian Church were established a year ago. Has 100% agreement been reached during this time?

–I think that purely from a human perspective, it is impossible to achieve a 100-percent resolution of absolutely all contentious questions through any such joint meetings. But this was not the goal set before the Commissions. It is important to achieve agreements on the main questions that divide us. In my opinion, a great deal has been achieved in this regard, which is clear from the documents published which have already received the approval of the hierarchies of both sides.

–In what issues have the differences been removed?

–From the very beginning of the talks, it was decided to concern ourselves first of all with issues of principle. These include matters of church-state relations and the attitude of the Orthodox Church to the heterodox and all types of inter-confessional organizations. Full concordance was reached in these matters. On the first point, both sides decided to condemn the path of the complete servitude of the Church to a totalitarian state as being contrary to Holy Scripture, Tradition and church laws, and on the second matter, syncretism, concelebration and the dilution of Orthodox ecclesiology were condemned.

–What remains to be resolved?

–The negotiation process on practical or administrative matters has not yet been finished. This involves, for example, points of conflict currently being disputed in civil courts.

–It is well known that the Commissions agreed on the status of the ROCOR as a self-governing church. What does this mean?

–This means that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will continue to exist with all its present dioceses and parishes, monasteries, educational institutions, Synodal and other establishments, and will, as now, continue to administer them with complete independence. The ROCOR will preserve its name, its independent legal identity, and will be guided by its Council and Synod of Bishops under the presidency of its independently-elected First Hierarch. The ROCOR will adhere to its existing Statutes, in which several necessary amendments will be made which will reflect its status as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church.

At the same time, despite its complete independence in administrative, educational, pastoral, property and management matters, the ROCOR, upon the ratification of the proposed Act on Canonical Unity, will recognize itself an indissoluble part of the Local Russian Church, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. This situation is a canonical requirement, or formality, since the Church Abroad never claimed the rights of an autocephalous church, and always considered itself to be only the free part of the Russian Church, as opposed to the part of the Church enslaved by the militantly atheistic Soviet regime.

–What will happen if the All-Diaspora Council does not accept the Commissions' conclusions?

–It is crucial to keep in mind that the All-Diaspora Council is not the highest administrative organ of the ROCOR, which remains the Council of Bishops. Besides bishops, the All-Diaspora Council will include the participation of representatives of the clergy and laity. Still, the supreme authority in the Orthodox Church is retained exclusively by the bishops, since the Church in its essence is not democratic, but hierarchical. As a result, immediately after the end of the All-Diaspora Council, the Council of Bishops will convene, in which only bishops will participate. And only the Council of Bishops can make the final decision on the approval or rejection of the Act on Canonical Unity of the Russian Church.

–Some are of the opinion that the unification of the Churches will lead to a schism within ROCOR itself…

–Most often, those who express the opinion of an impending schism in ROCOR are people who have already separated themselves from it. These include the followers of Valentin Rusantsov, who calls himself Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir, and also various "Mansonvillans," "Lazarevites," "Varnavites" and others who abuse the good name of the 95-year old Metropolitan Vitaly, who because of his age knows nothing of this. They all hope that the rapprochement between the Russian Church in the Fatherland and the Russian Church Abroad will prove unacceptable to many in the Church Abroad and that they would be forced to join those who already left.

In fact, their dreams will never be realized. The overwhelming majority of the clergy and flock of the Church Abroad love and value their First Hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus, and trust him and their ruling bishops. If the decision is made to establish Eucharistic communion with the ROC, they will calmly accept this and will rejoice that the differences between the two parts of the Russian Church will finally be overcome. It is possible that some individuals will leave into one schism or another, or will form a new schismatic group, but this will be those who have already mentally rejected any possibility of reconciliation, and it is impossible to change their minds.

–In case of the unification of the ROCOR and ROC, what will be the fate of the parishes of ROCOR in Russia and of the Russian clergymen of the Church Abroad living there?

–That is one of the problems still under discussion. I can only say that as it was expressed in the joint documents, in this matter decisions will be made with a maximum level of oikonomia, that is, of ecclesiastical condescension, since we are talking about living persons and their pastors. It is worth bearing in mind that the clergymen of the Russian parishes actively participate in the negotiation process as consultants and that His Grace Bishop Evtikhii will for the third time directly participate in the Commission meetings.

–If merging does occur, what will happen to the property of ROCOR? Will it become the property of the ROC?

–Questions of property are not even under discussion. From the very beginning it was decided to apply the principle of the preservation of the status quo in all property matters. So there will be absolutely no transfer of properties at all.

–In case of unification, will the ROCOR pay any sort of dues to the Moscow Patriarchate, as dioceses of the ROC do now?

–Absolutely no payments from ROCOR to the Moscow Patriarchate will be made. Also, no financial assistance from the Moscow Patriarchate will be received by the Church Abroad. The Church Abroad will be entirely self-governing, that is, administratively independent, and will as before support its own central ecclesiastical administrative organs.

–Has the question of the contested properties been decided, for example, in Jerusalem?

–In all matters concerning contested properties or points of conflict, talks are continuing, and information about them will be published as they are resolved. As of now, it has been decided to avoid new conflicts and lawsuits and to proceed towards resolving the existing conflicts in the spirit of oikonomia and fraternal, mutual understanding.

–Has it been easy for the Commissions' members to find a common language?

–No, of course. Both sides, and even each individual member of the Commissions brought their own personal viewpoints of the matters, their own evaluation of things, their own historical judgment of the events that occurred over the long decades on each side of the division. To find a common tongue, to understand ones opponent, to try and delve into his opponent's world view is a difficult matter. Still, I am deeply convinced that each side has determined that the other side is speaking frankly, and moreover, is convinced of the authenticity of their belief that the conflict must be overcome (while preserving their positions of principle) to finally achieve the common goal: to heal the wounds inflicted by this very long and unhealthy forced separation.

I might add that, thank the Lord, the more often we meet, the easier it is to understand each other and to reach a mutual decision on matters.

–Will this unification add to the number of parishioners of the Church Abroad?

–I think that this question is not posed properly. The matter at hand is not the size the flock of the Church Abroad, it is a question of overcoming of divisions, that is, the matter is on another, higher plane.

Still, it is very possible that there are some believers abroad who until now have been pushed away by the lack of unity among the churches. Some of them may have had the impression that this division arose on the basis of some personal conflicts: that the bishops have quarreled and cannot make peace. Or that all this resulted from efforts to increase personal power or control over property. In these cases the achievement of the desired unity can help overcome their misunderstanding and draw them closer to the Church. Then the reconciliation will enable the flock of the Church Abroad to grow.

–If the All-Diaspora and then the Bishops' Councils in the spring of 2006 confirm the decisions of the Commissions, when in your opinion could the unification of the two parts of the Russian Church occur?

–If the All-Diaspora and Bishops' Councils make a positive decision on this matter, and the Holy Synod of the ROC*since this decision was deferred to it*confirms the Act of Canonical Unity, then the ceremony of the signing of the Act by the First Hierarchs of both Churches and their joint concelebration might happen very quickly.

In conclusion I would like to recall the Holy Scripture, which I paraphrase: "A kingdom divided will never flourish. And -- there is nothing better or more beautiful than when brothers live together in peace."

July 29, 2005

[Marcos G.]

Dear Fr. Ambrose,
Bless!

Thank you very much for posting the news of progress to restoration of relations with the Russian Church. It was informative and most helpful.

I have appreciated all the comments of the community on this topic. They are all food for thought and prayer and sometimes corrective. The reports from Russia concerning participation in the WCC have been clearly put forth and seem to be positive even though, I personally, am against any relationship with that world body.

Gospodi pomiluy,

Floridian

[Marcos G.]

Matthew wrote: "Reconciliation means full communion with all the Orthodox Patriarchates. The very notion of selecting by some isolated self defined criteria whom one will be in communion with within Orthodoxy is not Orthodox and reduces the universal nature of the Church. The Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and her members are in communion with one another, catholicity, which is not supposed to be full of woe, loathsome or reluctantly embraced. A luke warm disposition was not what I read in the documents coming from the council, thanks be to God.

ROCOR will have a local Synod without Moscow Patriarchal bishops involved in the administration of the Church abroad. The basic agreement being the Bishops of the local Church abroad know the concerns of their flock directly hence they will not be the recipients of directives from Moscow. Our Bishop's will also participate with or be a part of Moscow's Synod. So it will be a single hierarchy as it must be but not a overly administratively centralized hierarchy in Moscow. After all, Moscow knows little of the needs of the flock in Chicago."

Matthew, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here.

The question of "catholicity" has vexed me for many years because of tendancies in many sectors (and I am as guilty as anyone else) towards breaking fellowship when we are not in agreement. I have many friends who are Roman Catholics and even when they are not happy with their church's stance on matters or certain events they never think of leaving their church.

Floridian

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew, I agree wholeheartedly with what you have written here.

The question of "catholicity" has vexed me for many years because of tendancies in many sectors (and I am as guilty as anyone else) towards breaking fellowship when we are not in agreement. I have many friends who are Roman Catholics and even when they are not happy with their church's stance on matters or certain events they never think of leaving their church.

Floridian

I hope Matthew doesn't mind my stepping in here and adding my two cents worth since we have both spoken about this same issue together privately so many times.

Floridian- what you are talking about is what I call- just to put it into a short formula- the Matthewite mentality. By this I don't really mean concern about the new calendar, ecumenism, etc. I mean the way in which what are clearly serious problems within the Church are then taken as benchmarks which divide one from the Church and make one a heretic. This way of seeing the Church has now become so widespread that really it is a kind of mentality applied to all sorts of issues from ecumenism to pews in churches. Within this mentality these things are now regarded almost as equal to heresy and has led to as you say, "breaking fellowship when we are not in agreement."

I think you are spot on when pointing out how this is a major problem for us for it really does not match up to the standards of the Church either canonically or spiritually.

Canonically it is made very clear that we are called to be in communion with each other except for very grave dogmatic or canonical infractions. So the mark for what justifies not being in communion is much higher than we have in general made it.

This however I feel is only a symptom of a spiritual problem which ironically (since those who keep to the low mark of what allows for being out of communion think themselves to be very traditional) is very modernist. Note that in the past disputes that led to falling out of communion were mostly over the interpretation of canonical/moral infractions. One bishop felt another was not properly consecrated or following proper church order or whatever and broke communion.

Now however in the past 30 thirty years we see more and more things which are brought up as being equal to doctrinal matters with the list growing ever longer and not even restricted to conservative/liberal labels anymore. This I think is caused by the very modern mindset that one is free to pick and choose any reality one wants to live in and now we have brought this same mentality into the Church. Rather than seeing the Church as something we are obedient to & humble ourselves before, the Church becomes something which must submit to our definitions of what it should be. The extreme danger here is revealed only when we recognize that our definitions correspond to what is most selfish about ourselves (often these relate to issues of comfort and security). Inevitably also since these definitions are arbitrary and vary from person to person they also lead to a fractured world far from the unity of the Church.

To say it clearly then the Matthewite mentality is selfishness disguised as guarding the Church. It is extremely modernist and thus also audacious in what it is willing to do to accomplish its ends. (Again I'm pretty sure that 100 years ago our Orthodox forefathers would not even have dared think of doing the things we now do in action in order to preserve 'the righteousness of the Church.')

The understanding and recovery of a balanced Church life is crucial right now. The temptations to right: zeal not according to righteousness- and left: giving in to the hedonism of the world- have always been there. But these temptations seem more acute now and harder for us to spot as being selfish.

The answer here I think is to learn once again the kind of openess Christ calls us to and warns us against.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

For substantiation of Father Raphael's always welcome comments regarding the Matthewite mentality we need not look far. We can see the epitome or rather personification of such thinking via the one Bishop who has things narrowed down to the point of only God and himself are left. He considers himself to be the only true Orthodox bishop left.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Marcos G.]

For substantiation of Father Raphael's always welcome comments regarding the Matthewite mentality we need not look far. We can see the epitome or rather personification of such thinking via the one Bishop who has things narrowed down to the point of only God and himself are left. He considers himself to be the only true Orthodox bishop left.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I choose Matthew_P's quote to reply for its length. I heartily agree with all that Fr. Raphael has said and can only say "Amen" to it. I could bolster what he says with examples but they are negative and so will refrain. These comments are on the mark and it is truly sad to see the contentiousness that really is so often found in fundamentalist "evangelical" churches. I spoke with a priest who is not part of rocor and he rejoices for rocor's dialogue with Russia and told me he never thought he would see the day when the two would dialogue for "reconciliation" as they have. We can only thank God when people put the Church's interests before personal feelings.

Floridian

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Dear listmates -

FWIW, here are the links to the various ROCOR websites containing the official documents of the commissions, the IV All Diaspora Sobor and the decision of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR. The process has been blessedly "transparent" and the documents of the process have been made available in Russian as well as in English. I'm posting the English-language ones, but further exploration of the ROCOR official site will yield the Russian-language documents.

In Christ,
Elizabeth, the sinner
and Perennial student

Materials of the Commissions:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/materials.html

Materials of the Sobor:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engnews/ensobor.html (v)

Resolution of the Synod of Bishops:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5ensoborcouncil.html

Epistle to the God-loving Flock of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of May 15-19, 2006
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5enposlaniye.html

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Here is a very moving testimonial from Bishop Evtichy who was at the recent Sobor.

Experiences at the IV All-Diaspora Council
Which Led to My Obedience to the Will of God.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5envlevtihydc.html

The 'Experiences' which bishop Evtichy describes are part way down the page.

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: I'm still not sure how or if we can format a url like we used to with the old system. maybe I'll just send a 'test' post.

[Marcos G.]

Holy Fathers, bless!
Dear Friends,

Thank you for the many posts and links for information. Some of us inhabit rural areas and do not have much communication outside of parish life which often, for some, can be rather limited due to various circumstances. This is why the information contained in these posts are important so we may be informed about events and keep them ever before us in prayer.

Yours in our Lord,
Marc

[Marcos G.]

Here is a bit of news from the orthodox news site.

SCOBA General Assembly of Bishops

A general assembly of all Orthodox bishops in America, sponsored by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas, will be held in Chicago, IL in October 2006.

It was recalled that one of the main reasons for convening this assembly was in response to Archbishop NATHANIEL’S previous calls to meet, and discuss mutual concerns, including full administrative and sacramental unity of all Orthodox Christians in North America.

Marc

[J. A. McIntyre]

It's about time, I don't believe St. Tikon's decree to seek guidence outside of the Moscow was forever.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Tim for the reply.

I'm replying to you with this thread however since you referred to Abp Arseny and he fits into this theme.

Abp Arseny has been one of my most favourite church characters ever since I 'discovered' him in the archives of St Tikhon's abck in the 1980s. For those who do not know who Abp Arseny (Chahovets) was he was one of the young generation of churchmen whom then Bp Tihon of North America brought over from Russia in order to re-model the diocese more according to canonical standards that were not quite possible in Russia yet (there was still no patriarch and the church was controlled to a fair degree by the Governing Synod headed by an appointed civil administrator called the Over-Procurator). With pastorally minded & energetic young clergy that Bp Tikhon brought to N America the church was put onto a purposeful course of applying Holy Orthodoxy to conditions of life in the 'new land.' To this purpose the practise of clergy conferences and assemblies was begun and bishops were elected for different cultural groups within the N American church.

Abp Arseny was one of this 'new generation' and he was brought over from Kharkov in the Ukraine where after losing his wife he had become a monastic. Bp Tikhon appointed him to various parishes in Pennsylvania. He co-founded St Tikhon's monastery in South Canaan, Pa with Bp Tikhon and became its first abbot since "what is a church without a monastery?" Not long after this he was sent to western Canada where he did extensive work among the Ukrainian people who had settled here in vast numbers at the end of the 19th century.

After this Abp Arseny returned to Russia and during the revolution and civil war was evacuated to Yugoslavia where he was again the abbot of a monastery. All through this period he was under the jurisdiction of the Church Abroad which was headquartered in Yugoslavia and in the 1920s was consecrated as bishop for western Canada. Here he established many churches with his famous pastoral guidance (he was known as the 'Chrysostom of the prairies' for his homiletic abilities), & establsihed a fledgling monastery/pastoral school in Sifton, Manitoba.

Finally in the 1930s illness caused his 'retirement' to his beloved first home in North America- St Tikhon's- where with his characteristic energy he re-established an Orthodox seminary in 1937 (incredibly from shortly after the beginning of the revolution until 1937 there were no Orthodox seminaries in N America- prospective priests would travel to St Tikhon's to learn how to do the services at least). One account from this time which I enjoyed finding out was how during the late 30s or early 40s during the famous St Tikhon's Memorial Day 'Otpust' (Pilgrimage) he along with Fr Joseph Pishtey (then chancellor of the church) had Russian fascists who were distributing their literature chased off the monastery property. The Abp served the church with his incredible energy until his repose shortly after the War.

One reason to bring up the Abp on this thread is that he had as mentioned been consecrated as bishop by the Church Abroad for N America. This was at a time when the ruling metropolitan Theophilus as head of the local church often referred to as the metropolia sat as a senior bishop on the synod of the Church Abroad with metropolitan Anastasy. In other words Abp Arseny is one of those who represent a time when there was unique kind of unity of the church in N America.

Who knows- perhaps he prays for the most recent events now occuring within the church?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

If ROCOR is now in union with the MP and the MP considers the OCA to be the Autocehpalus church here in the US then would that eventually prevent OCA and ROCOR from having paralel hiearchys in the same area here in the US? Both OCA and ROCOR seem to consider the Russian Church the mother church of the USA and concede its power to grant autocephaly... I think the ROCOR didnt accept the MP's granting autocephaly to the OCA in the past because they considered it an act of the communists or under pressure or whatnot but now that they are again in union with the MP and the MP still considers OCA to be the autocephalus Church here now what?

[Father David Moser]

If ROCOR is now in union with the MP and the MP considers the OCA to be the Autocehpalus church here in the US ... now what?

Wait and see (like the rest of us). However, overall, most of what you have said are the result of a poor understanding of the issues involved. ROCOR, if the reconciliation with Moscow is effected, remains essentially autonomous and therefore not bound by the decsions of the MP. Also the fact that the MP and the OCA were mutually friendly still did not prevent "parallel" hierarchies - so why should it be any different with ROCOR.

Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

Wait and see (like the rest of us).

Well, I'm hoping for the best, as the great Russian startzy prophesied the Russurection of Holy Russia and Russian Orthodoxy. One thing I'm sure of, though, in this regard, is that the sooner this happens, the sooner the Antichrist will appear. And if the Optina Elders are correct, as I fear them to be, the list of New Maryrs will be considerably expanded, I'm afraid! Mercy, Lord, mercy! Pity us and impart freely Thy grace to standfast in that great and dreadful day!

[Scott Pierson]

Wait and see (like the rest of us). However, overall, most of what you have said are the result of a poor understanding of the issues involved. ROCOR, if the reconciliation with Moscow is effected, remains essentially autonomous and therefore not bound by the decsions of the MP.

Father Bless

I dont know much about this issue sorry if I misrepresented anything.


Also the fact that the MP and the OCA were mutually friendly still did not prevent "parallel" hierarchies - so why should it be any different with ROCOR.[

Thats true... You think it would though. I mean wouldnt the MP get mad If the OCA set up some of its Bishops in Russia . I would assume that would be taken as a sign of disrespect. If we are really one Church (which we are) why have two Bishops in the same area. I partialy understand the historical reasons for why it happend but I dont understand why people dont make it change. The Catholics seem to use the multiple jurisdiction argument against us to some good affect when it comes to keeping possible converts away. They say the TRUE church is one but those Orthodox are not one they have up 3 or 4 or more compeating bishops in the same teritory blah blah.. nationalism.. blah blah.... Not really that strong of an argument but its embarassing none the less. I've heard this is one of the major reasons that one Catholic radio host on EWTN became Catholic rather then Orthodox. Al Chresta is it or maybe I'm getting his name confused wtih a differnt EWTN guy.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott Pierson wrote



Thats true... You think it would though. I mean wouldnt the MP get mad If the OCA set up some of its Bishops in Russia . I would assume that would be taken as a sign of disrespect. If we are really one Church (which we are) why have two Bishops in the same area. I partialy understand the historical reasons for why it happend but I dont understand why people dont make it change. The Catholics seem to use the multiple jurisdiction argument against us to some good affect when it comes to keeping possible converts away. They say the TRUE church is one but those Orthodox are not one they have up 3 or 4 or more compeating bishops in the same teritory blah blah.. nationalism.. blah blah.... Not really that strong of an argument but its embarassing none the less. I've heard this is one of the major reasons that one Catholic radio host on EWTN became Catholic rather then Orthodox. Al Chresta is it or maybe I'm getting his name confused wtih a differnt EWTN guy.

This is one area where it's difficult to describe the facts rather than only giving one's opinion. Anyway I'll try.

The fact is that there is no easy solution for achieving one unified church out of multiple jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction has its own mandate to serve what it perceives to be its people. To deny this would be like saying the Serbian church should not have as its main focus the Serbs of this country; something which seems wrong and unrealistic. Past projects for unity however have precisely presented themselves in this way, as if unity is a matter of giving up the identity and mandate of our own jurisdiction for that of another. That such projects for unity have always collapsed in the past is no surprise since each jurisdiction feels a responsibility for the people it feels it has been called to serve.

Maybe it's this last point that has not been acknowledged enough. Jurisdictional focus on its people is often described by those interested mainly in the project for unity in a very cynical way as if it's all selfishness and power. This overlooks however a central aspect of jurisdictional focus in that in reality it usually is driven by at least its own sense of responsibility for its people. A call to unity which implicitly will involve overlooking the people one feels one has been called to serve is a certain non-starter. And in fact to this point this is why the horse has hardly gotten out of the gate for all the many plans there have been so far.

Unity then to be achieved will have to work positively with the reality of what each jurisdiction is. For this reason it is highly doubtful that any one jurisdiction can carry by itself the banner of unity unless it can really become all-inclusive in its vision. Perhaps though a group like SCOBA can successfully continue the effort of unity by presenting a common plan for unity. Not least it could be a place where different Orthodox meet each other without feeling threatened. This in itself could be a very important first step towards unity.

A last point about the chaos in Orthodoxy. For the most part this arises because in Orthodoxy we are aware that each of us even though there is a ruling hierarchy has a responsibility to the Church. This leads to concord but also at times to disagreement and even conflict. The Church is our Lord's Body but that doesn't mean He guarantees us clear sailing in this life. Indeed time in the Church seems to make it more clear that the Lord guarantees us times of trial. And this serves its providential purpose since this is how we learn to reach out to Christ in faith. Otherwise the risk is of the Church becoming too much of a well-oiled administration a temptation the Church has faced and looked down from the beginning of Her history. In a word, in the Church temptations are many while the Faith is one. This is what Christ has given us and any dreams of total peace now are false.

Anyway you know what they say about not having to fear that Orthodoxy is part of organised religion!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Scott,


They say the TRUE church is one but those Orthodox are not one they have up 3 or 4 or more competing bishops in the same teritory blah blah.. nationalism.. blah blah...

The Roman Catholic Church can hardly use such an argument reasonably against Orthodoxy relative to unity, as you know there really is unity of faith in Orthodoxy. How many different Bishops are there in communion with Rome in say Pittsburgh? Melkite, Ukrainian Catholic, non-Ukrainian Catholic, Ruthenian...


The USA clearly is not an Orthodox country, it's a heretic country. As such
things are not going to be normal when the heretics are in control of the government. If it was an Orthodox country we could take Chicago and divide it into 7 Orthodox cities one city for each Orthodox Bishop. It is easier to change some maps than men. If we ever converted all the Spanish people we could make a section for them as well etc. they could have a Spanish Bishop and section of Chicago as well.

[Scott Pierson]

The fact is that there is no easy solution for achieving one unified church out of multiple jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction has its own mandate to serve what it perceives to be its people. To deny this would be like saying the Serbian church should not have as its main focus the Serbs of this country; something which seems wrong and unrealistic. Past projects for unity however have precisely presented themselves in this way, as if unity is a matter of giving up the identity and mandate of our own jurisdiction for that of another. That such projects for unity have always collapsed in the past is no surprise since each jurisdiction feels a responsibility for the people it feels it has been called to serve.

Father Bless.

Thank You, your posts are informative as always. What about an American Church that has a mandate to serve americans? I know this is an imigrant nation my great grandparents came from Italy and Germany but I tend to consider myself an American. I would rather consider myself German or Italian because at least they have an interesting history and an Orthodox past (if you go back far enough) and modern America is like the babylon of the new world order BUT I was born here and I dont see how I could honestly call myself anything other then American. I understand that some people have more of a connection to their motherland due to the perservation of various aspects of their culture through religion but are they not also Americans? I do have mixed feelings about the being "American" thing I guess.. being more closed off to American culture may have helped perserve certain things in the Orthodox Churches here but there has to be a way to be involved, to bring the light to America and create a specificaly American Church without corrupting the Church. St Herman of Alaska is a good example of how to work twoards this I would think? I was reading a good book about Orthodox Missionarys to Zaire and one of the first things they did was translate everything into their language, appoint native priests and deacons and worked to make the Churches there as Zairean as possible why wouldnt that work here?

Couldnt there be one American Church that allows for individual parishs to be more ethnically specific ? Like there are Romanian parishes in the OCA for example? Do German Americans, African Americans , Japanese Americans, etc need their own churches too? The Churches that the Apostles set up seemed to be rather multi ethnic and cultural (jews, greeks, syrians, etc all together.) . heck they needed the gift of tounges just to talk together lol.

I'm not trying to say that OCA is the way it has to be or anything. Maybe that isnt the way to go. Maybe integrating Orthodoxy into American culture would ruin the Church I'm far from an expert. I dont even know what I believe on this issue .. just trying to learn .

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Scott,

One of the things I noticed happening here in Chicago is that some Parishes like the Serbian Orthodox Church a few blocks from my home has two Liturgies on Sunday. One at 8:30 in the morning for the English speaking and one at 10:30 for the Serbians. This also happened in our ROCOR parish with a group of 30 or so converts, they then formed another parish all English about 45 minutes away, Saint Innocents in Wheaton Illinois.

Orthodoxy in America is relatively new and needs some time for things God willing and us willing to work out.

I was in Jerusalem last year and at Divine Liturgy at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher the ethnic thing doesn't matter at all. All Orthodox Christians be they Greeks, Russians, Serbians, Palestinians, Italians come together to worship and the ethnic blend is beautiful. There collectively it ends up being insignificant, other than discussions about what kind of food the pilgrims will go to eat after Liturgy... What comes strongly through is Orthodox Christianity. The Liturgy was done in Greek and Slavonic and everyone seemed to understand even if they didn't understand the different tongues, they really did understand different tongues Liturgically speaking the same Orthodox faith.

When things calm down there it's a very moving experience to go. The Holy land does something to ones soul. I have a friend who visited and ended up moving there in spite of the situations wars etc.

No doubt as an American Orthodox Christian you would fit right in and feel quite at home among your Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, I did and I don't know anyone that didn't who was Orthodox.

Also most Americans that go to the Eskimo American Orthodox area in Alaska (Kodiak, Spruce Island) are quite moved by the English speaking Orthodox culture everywhere there. So the way I see it being an American is just fine as long as one is an Orthodox American of whatever ethnic ancestry, Italy Germany etc.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mark Harrison]

Also most Americans that go to the Eskimo American Orthodox area in Alaska (Kodiak, Spruce Island) are quite moved by the English speaking Orthodox culture everywhere there. So the way I see it being an American is just fine as long as one is an Orthodox American of whatever ethnic ancestry, Italy Germany etc.

In the nearly four years now that I have been living in Kodiak, working at St Herman Seminary (SHS), worshipping at Holy Resurrection Cathedral, our services have all been primarily in English. We do have occasional litanies in Yup'ik and Slavonic, but English is the unifying language. All classes are taught in English. Most of the books in the library are written in English. The natives of Kodiak Island are called Alutiiq and their language is a bit different from eitiher Aleut or Yup'ik.

Sadly, the only village I have had the opportunity to visit has been Ouzinkie, on Spruce Island. But from my conversations with Yup'ik students, Yup'ik is used more frequently in their villages. Aleut, unfortunately, is pretty much dead, at least in Unalaska, according to what I have heard. Our Aleut student doesn't speak Aleut at all.

The seminary's principle mission, but definitely not its sole mission, is the formation of clergy to serve in the Diocese of Alaska. This means service in villages. My observation has been that the Yup'ik people are a bit shy around white people at first, but we all get along very well. What really matters is our common Orthodox faith. Fr Chad, our dean, came from the Antiochian Archdiocese. I have always been OCA, but I resided in an Antiochian parish for seven years just before I came here. I think this has produced some very desirable, healthy results. At first the Natives were shocked by some of the different ways of doing things they saw, especially in Fr Chad. Now they just take them for granted and learn from them. Some have had the opportunity to visit Antiochian parishes in the Midwest, and have felt enriched by the experience. One of our priests who just graduated was a deacon when the Sitka Ikon was on tour. He came back radiant and joyful after visiting parishes of different jurisdictions. I even noticed that Greek-style phelonia seem to be growing in popularity around here, even though this is a 'Russian' diocese. Certainly we should and do remember that our Orthodox heritage, especially here in Alaska, is Russian, but it would be unnatural now to insist upon being purely Russian in our practice and points of reference. It seems to be that the pan-Orthodox influence has not only been healthy, but it is becoming exciting to the Native students. From time to time we have held community dinners with ethnic themes. One time we did Greek; another time Arabic; another time Fr Chad and Matushka Thekla put together an African theme. They lived in Africa for several years. These meals have been a way to foster real community life, while also expanding people's horizons. Our most recent community meal was Native Alaskan, to introduce our Trustees to local cuisine - lots of fish.

It has always seemed to me that for genuine unity to be achieved, we are going to have to have pan-Orthodox parishes. The pan-Orthodox communities I have lived in have been the most dynamic and over all healthy parishes. At the same time, there will be, for the foreseeable future a need for ethnic parishes as well. Some people who come from other countries blend in easily, others do not. The way to adapt to that reality is to allow both pan-Orthodox and ethnic parishes to exist side-by-side, hoping that they will learn to mix liturgically and socially at least from time to time, like on patronal feast days, or for services during the Great Fast, which is done in many places around the country. We have many common services and social events with St Innocent Academy, which is under the Bulgarian eparchy. They join us for the Akathist to St Herman almost every Thursday, or example. It seems to me that this pattern will organically grow if it is not forced. If jurisdictional unity allows for people who are tied to their ethnicity to have ethnic communities, while also providing pan-ethnic communities, it can work.

At this point, however, ROCOR needs to focus on being a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. I have long observed the path of reconciliation with great joy, and the hopes that with that terrible wound healed, other wounds in the Orthodox Church that were caused by the Bolshevik Revolution might in turn be healed, especially that of jurisdictional chaos. I am, therefore, somewhat disappointed that the reconcilation between them will not immediately precipitate a broad unification. The simple fact is that right now, they need time to get to know each other again. They need time to build up their relationship as Russian Orthodox. As that happens, the door to their participation in general administrative unity will open. We all just need to be patient, and I am the first who does. I suspect that it will happen in stages. MP-ROCOR are likely to unite their parishes outside of Russia first, then perhaps gather the other Slavic jurisdictions. In the meantime, the OCA, if it still exists, may well merge with the Antiochians. The OCA has natural ties both with the Russians and with the Antiochians. Those ties are different, so I am not sure which direction the OCA would go. I am leaning toward the Antiochians because of their emphasis on mission and the fact that in the last 30 years there have been closer relations with the Antiochians than with ROCOR, to say the least. Some people in the OCA are bothered by the fact that the MP is regularlising ROCOR's canonical status, even here in North America, in spite of the autocephaly. The Russians are making it clear that whatever they say on paper, our autocephaly is of little practical meaning.

In the end, I do believe canonical unity will be achieved, but it may yet be decades away. The wounds of the Bolshevik Revolution, which afflict all of us, not just the Russians, will be slow to heal. We must pray and be patient.

[Mark Harrison]

[QUOTE=Matthew_P;35472]
Also most Americans that go to the Eskimo American Orthodox area in Alaska (Kodiak, Spruce Island) are quite moved by the English speaking Orthodox culture everywhere there. So the way I see it being an American is just fine as long as one is an Orthodox American of whatever ethnic ancestry, Italy Germany etc.

In the nearly four years now that I have been living in Kodiak, working at St Herman Seminary (SHS), worshipping at Holy Resurrection Cathedral, our services have all been primarily in English. We do have occasional litanies in Yup'ik and Slavonic, but English is the unifying language. All classes are taught in English. Most of the books in the library are written in English. The natives of Kodiak Island are called Alutiiq and their language is a bit different from eitiher Aleut or Yup'ik.

Sadly, the only village I have had the opportunity to visit has been Ouzinkie, on Spruce Island. But from my conversations with Yup'ik students, Yup'ik is used more frequently in their villages. Aleut, unfortunately, is pretty much dead, at least in Unalaska, according to what I have heard. Our Aleut student doesn't speak Aleut at all.

The seminary's principle mission, but definitely not its sole mission, is the formation of clergy to serve in the Diocese of Alaska. This means service in villages. My observation has been that the Yup'ik people are a bit shy around white people at first, but we all get along very well. What really matters is our common Orthodox faith. Fr Chad, our dean, came from the Antiochian Archdiocese. I have always been OCA, but I resided in an Antiochian parish for seven years just before I came here. I think this has produced some very desirable, healthy results. At first the Natives were shocked by some of the different ways of doing things they saw, especially in Fr Chad. Now they just take them for granted and learn from them. Some have had the opportunity to visit Antiochian parishes in the Midwest, and have felt enriched by the experience. One of our priests who just graduated was a deacon when the Sitka Ikon was on tour. He came back radiant and joyful after visiting parishes of different jurisdictions. I even noticed that Greek-style phelonia seem to be growing in popularity around here, even though this is a 'Russian' diocese. Certainly we should and do remember that our Orthodox heritage, especially here in Alaska, is Russian, but it would be unnatural now to insist upon being purely Russian in our practice and points of reference. It seems to be that the pan-Orthodox influence has not only been healthy, but it is becoming exciting to the Native students. From time to time we have held community dinners with ethnic themes. One time we did Greek; another time Arabic; another time Fr Chad and Matushka Thekla put together an African theme. They lived in Africa for several years. These meals have been a way to foster real community life, while also expanding people's horizons. Our most recent community meal was Native Alaskan, to introduce our Trustees to local cuisine - lots of fish.

It has always seemed to me that for genuine unity to be achieved, we are going to have to have pan-Orthodox parishes. The pan-Orthodox communities I have lived in have been the most dynamic and over all healthy parishes. At the same time, there will be, for the foreseeable future a need for ethnic parishes as well. Some people who come from other countries blend in easily, others do not. The way to adapt to that reality is to allow both pan-Orthodox and ethnic parishes to exist side-by-side, hoping that they will learn to mix liturgically and socially at least from time to time, like on patronal feast days, or for services during the Great Fast, which is done in many places around the country. We have many common services and social events with St Innocent Academy, which is under the Bulgarian eparchy. They join us for the Akathist to St Herman almost every Thursday, or example. It seems to me that this pattern will organically grow if it is not forced. If jurisdictional unity allows for people who are tied to their ethnicity to have ethnic communities, while also providing pan-ethnic communities, it can work.

This would be an excellent model for a new unity in North America involving ROCOR. At this point, however, ROCOR needs to focus on being a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The two halves of the Russian Church need to continue on the path they have been following, learning to work together (as in the Sourozh diocese), and becoming comfortable together again. The laity need time to assimilate this change. At this point, being Russian, as well as Orthodox, is an important part of the healing. They need to identify with each other culturally. I have come to believe that expecting anything else would be unrealistic.

I have long observed the path of reconciliation with great joy, and the hopes that with that terrible wound healed, other wounds in the Orthodox Church that were caused by the Bolshevik Revolution might in turn be healed, especially that of jurisdictional chaos. I am, therefore, somewhat disappointed that the reconcilation between the MP and ROCOR will probably not be the immediate impetus for overall unity that I had once hoped it would be, but that doesn't mean it won't be a first step, even if ROCOR remains autonomous for the foreseeable future. Working together, the MP and ROCOR can still have a strong influence in a lot of matters, and I think it will be a good one. My suspicion is that both in North America and in Western Europe, they will be able to unite first the Slavic eparchies outside of the motherlands, and then others as well. Both the MP and ROCOR have freely allowed the existence of non-Russian parishes under their omophoria. A model for jurisdictional unity in which both mono-ethnic and poly-ehtnic parishes co-exist, should be acceptable for the Russian Church leadership, from all that I have seen. It is my hope that, even if it doesn't happen as quickly as I wish it would happen, the Russian Church will be a strong leader in the area of Orthodox unity. It will tiake time and patience.

[Mark Harrison]

If ROCOR is now in union with the MP and the MP considers the OCA to be the Autocehpalus church here in the US then would that eventually prevent OCA and ROCOR from having paralel hiearchys in the same area here in the US? Both OCA and ROCOR seem to consider the Russian Church the mother church of the USA and concede its power to grant autocephaly... I think the ROCOR didnt accept the MP's granting autocephaly to the OCA in the past because they considered it an act of the communists or under pressure or whatnot but now that they are again in union with the MP and the MP still considers OCA to be the autocephalus Church here now what?

I am going to stick my neck out here and hope it doesn't get chopped. Please remember that anything I say is strictly my own opinion:

What has the autocephaly of the OCA meant? As far as I can see, it has been nothing more than a piece of paper and the liturgical courtesy at St Nicholas Cathedral in NYC of commemorating the OCA's metropolitan at all services, before the administrator of the patriarchal parishes in the United States. Oh yes, and the Metropolitan consecrates our Chrism. On a somewhat more practical level, it has meant that Moscow has not interfered in the internal affairs of the OCA, nor has anyone else, for that matter; or at least they've done it very shrewdly. The status quo has been to ignore the autocephaly. Other jusrisdictions co-exist and mind their own affairs in a live and let live arrangement. The OCA has never really done anything to enforce its perogatives as an autocephalous church, and no one else has tried to challenge those perogatives, except by having their own parallel ecclesiastical structures on the same territory. This is what I mean by everyone ignoring the OCA's autocephaly.

From contacts I have had with other ROCOR people, and perhaps Fr David can clarify here, ROCOR's idea is just to let things go on the way they are. Reconciled with the MP, I figure that ROCOR will follow the MP policy of being in communion and friendly with the OCA, letting the OCA manage (or mis-manage) its own affairs, all the while politely ignoring the Tomos of Autocephaly. To ROCOR, the OCA will just be another 'autonomous' Russian jurisdiction.

Looking at it from the OCA's side, this arrangement brings the problem into relief. It's hard to ignore the fact that your autocephaly is being 'politely ignored' when the MP is now embracing its former rival. Let us just say, for example, that the MP places all parishes outside of Russian territory under ROCOR. That would be a bit more of a slap in the face to the OCA. It would be impolitely ignoring the autocephaly. This also sends a signal to other 'old country' Orthodox churches, especially the EP. If the autocephaly of the OCA means that little to the MP, why should anyone else begin to take it seriously? The EP has always formally rejected the autocephaly, so if Moscow is now blatantly, rather than passively, ignoring the autocephaly they themselves claimed the right to give, why should the EP even give the OCA the time of day?

But, what is the OCA going to do about it? The OCA has enough internal problems to keep everybody busy. Do we have the time, money, or other resources to raise any substantial objection? I wouldn't count on it. Sadly, the OCA right now is her own worst enemy. Her own internal chaos not only will not command respect, it is a cause of scandal. I'm sorry to say it, but that's the way it is. We don't have our act together. We are not in a position to demand anything, especially that other jurisdictions not be allowed to exist.

What can/should the OCA do now? Obviously, I am not the one to tell anybody what to. Common sense, however, seems to dictate that we approach our situation realistically. 1) We are not going to prevent the MP/ROCOR reconciliation, nor are we going to have any say in the terms of reconciliation. Their negotiations are based on the fundamental principle they both are integral parts of the Russian Church and they will make their arrangements based on that principle. The OCA must accept that. We can dislike it all we want, but it won't change anything. 2) Reconciliation should always be a cause of joy. The OCA will do itself and everyone else a favour by accepting the MP/ROCOR reconciliation not only gracefully, but with the joy of the angels in heaven, upon seeing the repentance of sinners on all sides and their mutual embrace in brotherly love. 3) Then the OCA should seek to work within the new reality; be creative. What can be done under the new circumstances to promote jurisdictional unity?

I was told once, many years ago, by an OCA hierarch, that the OCA would accept merging with another jusridiction and ceasing to be the OCA if, and only if, that merger meant a broader autocephaly. What the OCA would not accept would be going back to being under the omophorion of a foreign hierarchy. As a whole, the principle supported by Fr Alexander Schmemann and others, has always been that there needs to be local Orthodox Church for North America, with an entirely local hierarchy that lives in, and therefore fully understands the local needs. This too, I believe is a part of the reality that all Orthodox need to face - including the Patriarchs in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Part of their excuse for having their own ecclesiastical structures in North America is the need to minister effectively to people from their territories. I fully believe in the principle of an autocephalous Orthodox church for North America. It is not only the only canonical arrangement, it is the only functional arrangement in the end. The problem is how to achieve a realistic, working, autocephalous church?

I don't have any specific answers, nor is it my place to pretend to solve this problem; but going back to my common sense theme, I do believe that the answer lies in working together; that favourite Orthodox term 'synergia.' Given the OCA's current crisis, and the reality of the MP/ROCOR reconcilation being all but a done deal, common sense tells me that making renewed efforts to work together toward a true, all-embracing autocephaly, to find creative solutions to the problem of how to fully minister to the various ethnic groups in a united jurisdiction, and how to not foster feelings of being left out or second class citizens, would be in the OCA's best interests right now. This may take another decade, or more. Right now, the Antiochians seem to be the most interested. Right now the Russians are very involved in their own reconcilation. Perhaps the most realistic path is for the OCA and the Antiochians to get together and let the Russians work things out for themselves. +ALEXII has said repeatedly that he wants to solve the problem of multiple jurisdictions, so with the Russian Church might then be able to work with the other Slavic churches to unite the various slavic jurisdictions. That would be another step in the right direction. Eventually, the EP, which is most likely to balk given its bizarre interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon, would have no choice but to accept an autocephalous church for North America, and perhaps one for Western Europe as well, and even one for Australia/New Zealand. The important thing today, however, is that the OCA accept the reality of its own situation and work cheerfully toward its own professed goal, rather than seeing the MP/ROCOR reconciliation as a slap in the face or a threat.

With regard to the specific matter of meeting ethnic needs, perhaps one quality to be expected of hierarchs in North America would be the quality demonstrated by St Tikhon: the ability to adapt from parish to parish to the local, ethnic, and other customs, of each. On the other hand, perhaps arrangements could be made with other local churches to help meet the particular needs of a specific ethnic group. Even if it is not ideal, even if it has its own set of problems, perhaps the most practical solution for a while would be to have some ethnic dioceses, such as the OCA has now. I don't claim to know the specific answers, but surely, there must be ways to make it work if people work together like the brothers and sisters in Christ that we are.

My general suggestion isn't intended to be advice to hierarchs, let alone instruction in how to do their jobs, it's just an exercise in common sense. I'd not tell the President what to do either, but common sense tells me that unqualified support of any nation, including Israel, is dangerous. History has shown that human nature is such that giving unqualified support only serves to lift somebody above accountability, and where there is no accountability, there is tyranny. It's dangerous. When I read about hundreds of Lebanese civiliations dying and hundreds of thousands more being left homeless, common sense dictates that I look for a different solution to the problems that have led to the situation. But, as I said from the outset, this is all just my own opinion.

[Mark Harrison]

The fact is that there is no easy solution for achieving one unified church out of multiple jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction has its own mandate to serve what it perceives to be its people. To deny this would be like saying the Serbian church should not have as its main focus the Serbs of this country; something which seems wrong and unrealistic. Past projects for unity however have precisely presented themselves in this way, as if unity is a matter of giving up the identity and mandate of our own jurisdiction for that of another. That such projects for unity have always collapsed in the past is no surprise since each jurisdiction feels a responsibility for the people it feels it has been called to serve.

Maybe it's this last point that has not been acknowledged enough. Jurisdictional focus on its people is often described by those interested mainly in the project for unity in a very cynical way as if it's all selfishness and power. This overlooks however a central aspect of jurisdictional focus in that in reality it usually is driven by at least its own sense of responsibility for its people. A call to unity which implicitly will involve overlooking the people one feels one has been called to serve is a certain non-starter. And in fact to this point this is why the horse has hardly gotten out of the gate for all the many plans there have been so far.

Unity then to be achieved will have to work positively with the reality of what each jurisdiction is. For this reason it is highly doubtful that any one jurisdiction can carry by itself the banner of unity unless it can really become all-inclusive in its vision. Perhaps though a group like SCOBA can successfully continue the effort of unity by presenting a common plan for unity. Not least it could be a place where different Orthodox meet each other without feeling threatened. This in itself could be a very important first step towards unity.

A last point about the chaos in Orthodoxy. For the most part this arises because in Orthodoxy we are aware that each of us even though there is a ruling hierarchy has a responsibility to the Church. This leads to concord but also at times to disagreement and even conflict. The Church is our Lord's Body but that doesn't mean He guarantees us clear sailing in this life. Indeed time in the Church seems to make it more clear that the Lord guarantees us times of trial. And this serves its providential purpose since this is how we learn to reach out to Christ in faith. Otherwise the risk is of the Church becoming too much of a well-oiled administration a temptation the Church has faced and looked down from the beginning of Her history. In a word, in the Church temptations are many while the Faith is one. This is what Christ has given us and any dreams of total peace now are false.

Anyway you know what they say about not having to fear that Orthodoxy is part of organised religion!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Bravo! Well said! Thank you, Father Raphael!

If there is anything I have particularly admired in ROCOR of late, it has been the willingness to face reality, including the reality of its own past, for better and for worse. The address of Archbishop MARK of Berlin to the 4th All-Diaspora Council was one for the history books. Likewise, the address given by Bishop EVTIKHII at St John the Forerunner Cathedral in Washington, D.C. and his recent pastoral letter to his flock are filled with a kind of realism that suggests a great deal of humility. From that humility proceeds genuine love in Christ, a true pastoral relationship between bishop and flock. These two hierarchs were not the only examples. My reading of all of the materials posted in relative to the 4th ADC reflected a deep committment to facing truth in humility, without letting go of absolute adherence to ROCOR's best principle - the struggle against false ecumenism.

I'll not repeat what I just posted, except to say that I believe that Fr Raphel is spot on in his analysis of the failure to achieve jurisdictional unity. I had not even read this post when I composed my own. Thank you again, Father! Please remember me at the Proskomidia, Sub-deacon Mark.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott Pierson wrote


What about an American Church that has a mandate to serve americans? I know this is an imigrant nation my great grandparents came from Italy and Germany but I tend to consider myself an American.


Even though I belong to a jurisdiction with a large 'ethnic' mandate I also strongly believe in the commitment (which our jurisdiction also has) towards those born here whether converts or assimilated Orthodox. I feel it is critical for every part or jurisdiction of the Orthodox church to have a commitment to Orthodoxy as it is lived here for after all we all live here- even those who are 'ethnic'.

However all of the Church must be brought along in the quest for unity- the Church after all is a lot more than different cultural groups; the Church is supposed to be a unity amidst all this diversity.

That's why I bring up the question of the challenges with the different mandates of the different jurisdictions. Not as if these should prevent unity but rather that unity could probably be better achieved if we took this variety fully into account.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

Mark Harrison and Matthew Panchisin Thank you for the replys. I've learned a lot from reading the last few posts. I'm definitly not going to solve this problem myself nor do I think I'm any position to "teach our Bishops a thing or two " lol... I was just wondering what I personaly should think about the situation. I didnt mean to imply that I was upset about the reunion of ROCOR and the MP , I'm not at all. I was just wondering what the implications would be and why the MP granted the OCA autocephaly but doesnt appear to take it that seriously. I wonder if a simmilar situation ever occured in our Church history? I know at one time Bishops from the Latin Patrichate tried to set up Bishops in an area already under the jurisdiction of Constanople but I dont remember how the issue was settled ( prior to the schism obviously).

The Parish that I attend is very multi ethnic about 50% are from various "Orthodox Ethnicitys" the majority being Russian (but others as well) and 50% are converts or the children / grandchildren of converts of a varity of nationalitys. We have more then a few former presbyterians, catholics, and Lutherans.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Mark Harrison wrote


This would be an excellent model for a new unity in North America involving ROCOR. At this point, however, ROCOR needs to focus on being a part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The two halves of the Russian Church need to continue on the path they have been following, learning to work together (as in the Sourozh diocese), and becoming comfortable together again. The laity need time to assimilate this change. At this point, being Russian, as well as Orthodox, is an important part of the healing. They need to identify with each other culturally. I have come to believe that expecting anything else would be unrealistic.

I have long observed the path of reconciliation with great joy, and the hopes that with that terrible wound healed, other wounds in the Orthodox Church that were caused by the Bolshevik Revolution might in turn be healed, especially that of jurisdictional chaos. I am, therefore, somewhat disappointed that the reconcilation between the MP and ROCOR will probably not be the immediate impetus for overall unity that I had once hoped it would be, but that doesn't mean it won't be a first step, even if ROCOR remains autonomous for the foreseeable future.


I think the best word to describe what is happening between ROCOR & the MP is reconciliation; this has indeed been the word most often used in the negotiations between the two churches.

This is because the kind of unity ROCOR and the MP are looking forward to is not ROCOR becoming part of the MP, a kind of MP Abroad, but rather achieving a canonical reconciliation which allows ROCOR the needed degree of administrative autonomy in order to be able to maintain its basic identity. It's this last point- that the negotiating process was able to achieve such a great degree of autonomy for ROCOR, which many think is a very good sign for the growth & unity of the Church in this part of the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

I want to apologize for complaining. Its very easy for me to sit here behind my computer and pontificate about how things should be. This issue is very complex and I dont even know half what I need know in order to have an informed opinion. I'm afraid people may actually end up being stupider for having read my lame posts. I have learned a lot though. Thanks.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I want to apologize for complaining. Its very easy for me to sit here behind my computer and pontificate about how things should be. This issue is very complex and I dont even know half what I need know in order to have an informed opinion. I'm afraid people may actually end up being stupider for having read my lame posts. I have learned a lot though. Thanks.

I often get a head-ache just thinking about these things so I know what you mean!

But one of the best things about Monachos I think is that it allows us to hear how others think & exposes us to the perspectives of those within Orthodoxy which we may not be familiar with. And this opportunity surely gives us a greater understanding of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Scott,

It can get a bit frustrating at times, but keep in mind that in Serbia hundreds of Orthodox Churches are being destroyed these days. In communist Russia not so long ago now thousands of Churches had been destroyed and many Orthodox Christians died for the faith. So these issues in America will work out in time. Our hierarchs have heavy crosses to bear and surely they are well aware of these issues. We have to trust in the Holy Spirit as we pray in the Liturgy.

"Having prayed for the unity of faith and for the communion of the Holy Spirit, let us commit ourselves, and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Here is a recent new release.

Russia
Russian Orthodox Church to build bridges with diaspora
18:37 | 24/ 07/ 2006



MOSCOW, July 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's patriarch will perform the first-ever joint service with the leader of the Orthodox Russians overseas later this year, to reconnect the two communities after an almost century-long split, the Moscow Patriarchy said Monday.

Patriarchy officials said Alexy II and Metropolitan Laurus of New York would perform the Holy Communion in a symbolic gesture aimed at restoring ties severed in the 1920s, after Russian Orthodox leaders forced out of the country by the Bolshevik revolution accused the Moscow Patriarchy of collaborating with the new regime.

The officials gave no specific date for the historic service, but said it could take place in the Moscow Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia attended three services in Moscow during his first official visit in 2004.

[Alec Lowly]

This is because the kind of unity ROCOR and the MP are looking forward to is not ROCOR becoming part of the MP, a kind of MP Abroad, but rather achieving a canonical reconciliation which allows ROCOR the needed degree of administrative autonomy in order to be able to maintain its basic identity. It's this last point- that the negotiating process was able to achieve such a great degree of autonomy for ROCOR, which many think is a very good sign for the growth & unity of the Church in this part of the world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Well, I'm happy that two Orthodox jurisdictions are restoring communion between them, but I'm still perplexed why the ROCOR will continue to exist as an "autonomous" entity. This makes no ecclesiological or canonical sense -- that the Russian church within Russia and the Russian church outside of Russia are two different churches. I don't mean to rain on this parade, but let's keep in mind that this continues to be, well, frankly, a bizarre arrangement.

[Elizabeth Riggs]

Well, I'm happy that two Orthodox jurisdictions are restoring communion between them, but I'm still perplexed why the ROCOR will continue to exist as an "autonomous" entity. This makes no ecclesiological or canonical sense -- that the Russian church within Russia and the Russian church outside of Russia are two different churches. I don't mean to rain on this parade, but let's keep in mind that this continues to be, well, frankly, a bizarre arrangement.

Not so bizarre. What was bizarre was being separated. Administratively, it would seem that for now ROCOR would continue to administer the current ROCOR parishes/dioceses, and the MP would continue to administer their crrent MP parishes/dioceses. What will happen in a few generations is pure speculation. Certainly, if you had asked members of ROCOR 6 years ago if they believed this would be happening in 2006, you would have gotten a resounding, NO!

All the details have not been worked out, but I'm sure once they are, they will be discussed and re-discussed ad nauseum here and on the lists.

Whatever is decided, my family and I will remain obedient to our hierarch.

With Love in Christ,
Elizabeth, the sinner
and Perennial Student

[Mark Harrison]

I often get a head-ache just thinking about these things so I know what you mean!

But one of the best things about Monachos I think is that it allows us to hear how others think & exposes us to the perspectives of those within Orthodoxy which we may not be familiar with. And this opportunity surely gives us a greater understanding of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Let us all pray for the kind of humility being exhibited by Archbishop MARK of Berlin and Bishop EVTIKHII of Ishim and others in ROCOR. I truly believe that their approach to their this very complicated and emotion-frought situation is to the glory of God. They are being willing to do exactly what Fr Raphael is saying this forum allows us to do: to be exposed with other perspectives within Orthodoxy and therefore gain a greater understanding of the truth.

I also agree that the way that the MP and ROCOR are going about the process of reconcilation is a healthy one, not only for themselves, but for all of us. Both sides are being REALISTIC. Both sides are willing to set aside claims to perogatives and rights, etc. to meet the genuine needs of the Church as a whole. In short, to repeat the term I used earlier, both sides are using COMMON SENSE. While common sense is definitely not so common, at least these people have it and are using it. God willing, in time, their labours will benefit all of us.

Quite honestly, during Great Lent this year, with all of the sad turmoil in the OCA, I was delighted to read the ROCOR web-site. It is a rare occasion that ecclesiastical politics are uplifting, but the news about the continuing work toward reconcilation between MP and ROCOR was a cause of joy to my soul. It was very fitting Lenten reading: a series of practical, real-life lessons in orthopraxis.

May I ask, Fr Raphael, where you are located and who your bishop is? I'll understand fully if you prefer to keep your 'jurisdictional affiliation' (don't you just hate the very concept?) to yourself. I'll take no offence whatsoever.

In XC,

Mark Harrison

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Alec,



I don't mean to rain on this parade, but let's keep in mind that this continues to be, well, frankly, a bizarre arrangement.

I found this on your profile page, so you should understand. Don't worry about it, things will work out as they are supposed to.

By the way it's called sloppy Russian, it gets better latter.

Lev Gillet also known as
"A monk of the Eastern Church"

O strange Orthodox Church, so poor and weak, with neither the organization nor the culture of the West, staying afloat as if by a miracle in the face of so many trials, tribulations and struggles; a Church of contrasts, both so traditional and so free, so archaic and so alive, so ritualist and so personally involved, a Church where the priceless pearl of the Gospel is assiduously preserved, sometimes under a layer of dust; a Church which in shadows and silence maintains above all the eternal values of purity, poverty, asceticism, humility and forgiveness; a Church which has often not known how to act, but which can sing of the joy of Pascha like no other.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Mark Harrison]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I choose Matthew_P's quote to reply for its length. I heartily agree with all that Fr. Raphael has said and can only say "Amen" to it. I could bolster what he says with examples but they are negative and so will refrain. These comments are on the mark and it is truly sad to see the contentiousness that really is so often found in fundamentalist "evangelical" churches. I spoke with a priest who is not part of rocor and he rejoices for rocor's dialogue with Russia and told me he never thought he would see the day when the two would dialogue for "reconciliation" as they have. We can only thank God when people put the Church's interests before personal feelings.

Floridian

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Sorry, if this reply seems out of place for being so long after the fact, but I am just now catching up, and this is a topic dear to my heart as I too, though not ROCOR or MP, rejoice at seeing them walk the path toward reconciliation.

[Mark Harrison]

One reason to bring up the Abp on this thread is that he had as mentioned been consecrated as bishop by the Church Abroad for N America. This was at a time when the ruling metropolitan Theophilus as head of the local church often referred to as the metropolia sat as a senior bishop on the synod of the Church Abroad with metropolitan Anastasy. In other words Abp Arseny is one of those who represent a time when there was unique kind of unity of the church in N America.

Who knows- perhaps he prays for the most recent events now occuring within the church?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I certainly hope he does. I specifically asked St John of Shanghai and San Francisco, before whose relics the Sobor was held, to add his prayers, that God's will be done and that we would be enlightened to understand and accept His will, whatever it may be. I similarly asked SS Tikhon, Innocent, and Herman to whom I have particular devotion, to add their prayers; and last but far from least, I sought the intercessions of the Joy of All Who Sorrow - at the very least, it seemed courteous since the Sobor was held in a temple dedicated to her. At the most, how can we not ask the intercessions of the Mother God and through Him, the Mother of the Church and each of us?

MAH

[Mark Harrison]

Here is a recent new release.

Russia
Russian Orthodox Church to build bridges with diaspora
18:37 | 24/ 07/ 2006



MOSCOW, July 24 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's patriarch will perform the first-ever joint service with the leader of the Orthodox Russians overseas later this year, to reconnect the two communities after an almost century-long split, the Moscow Patriarchy said Monday.

Patriarchy officials said Alexy II and Metropolitan Laurus of New York would perform the Holy Communion in a symbolic gesture aimed at restoring ties severed in the 1920s, after Russian Orthodox leaders forced out of the country by the Bolshevik revolution accused the Moscow Patriarchy of collaborating with the new regime.

The officials gave no specific date for the historic service, but said it could take place in the Moscow Kremlin's Assumption Cathedral.

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia attended three services in Moscow during his first official visit in 2004.[/QUOTE]

Greetings, Matthew!

Do you have a source URL for this? It's great news, even if it is still a indefinite about the date.

[Mark Harrison]

Well, I'm happy that two Orthodox jurisdictions are restoring communion between them, but I'm still perplexed why the ROCOR will continue to exist as an "autonomous" entity. This makes no ecclesiological or canonical sense -- that the Russian church within Russia and the Russian church outside of Russia are two different churches. I don't mean to rain on this parade, but let's keep in mind that this continues to be, well, frankly, a bizarre arrangement.

This strikes me as a concession to realism. Is it ideal? Is it a kind of arrangement that the canons foresee? No and no. Is it anti-canonical? Again, no. The simple reality is that after decades of separation, each side knows best how to tend to its flock. The needs are different, the circumstances are different. I have no doubt that the Fathers of Ecumenical Councils would endorse the arrangement under the circumstances, even if they and we might hope that it gives way to administrative unity in the not-too-distant future, and steps in that direction along the way.

[Kosta]

The yearning of a single american orthodox jurisdiction while commendable is premature. It will not happen in our generation or the next.
With a large number of russian immigrants coming to america the ROCOR parishes will grow, Russia may have granted autocephaly to the OCA, yet the (MP) now has about 3 dozen parishes in america. The MP can and has thought about rescinding the tomos of autocephaly granted to the OCA.

The E.P. will never release the GOAA with out a fight. The GOAA is the Patriarchs cash cow he wont let anyone slaughter it. Likewise many GOAA parishes along with Serbian parishes are still very ethnic and do not want to sever ties with the old country. A rush for american unity will without a doubt cause schism within these jurisdictions.

The Antiochan Archdocese "seems" to be leading the way towards a unified american Orthodox church, or are they? The truth is Antioch wants nothing to do with unity, if they did they would be negotiating with the OCA to devise a plan to either be absorbed into the OCA or negotiate some sort of merger. The relationship between Antioch and the OCA is actually quite rocky. While bishop Phillip Saliba speaks of a unified american church his actions do not. It sounds good to his constituents (protestant converts to his jurisdiction) but has never ever made a legitimate outreach with the other jurisdictions for coming up with a plan to unify the church.

Throw in the fact that there are differences between the jurisdictions, Antioch is liberal while the OCA is conservative, The greeks and the OCA reject antiochs western rite churches. Jerusalem parishes in america are growing as an alternative to what is seen as lenient Orthodoxy among the other juridictions etc.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This strikes me as a concession to realism. Is it ideal? Is it a kind of arrangement that the canons foresee? No and no. Is it anti-canonical? Again, no. The simple reality is that after decades of separation, each side knows best how to tend to its flock. The needs are different, the circumstances are different. I have no doubt that the Fathers of Ecumenical Councils would endorse the arrangement under the circumstances, even if they and we might hope that it gives way to administrative unity in the not-too-distant future, and steps in that direction along the way.

I think we need to keep in mind that what produced the circumstance of multiple jurisdictions was the chaos of the Russian revolution & First World War. During the inter-War years the seriously unsettled conditions within the newly Soviet Russia, eastern Europe plus the depression in the rest of the world did not allow for a proper solution to this problem. Then of course followed the Second World War and the resulting dislocation followed by the Cold War.

In other words behind the problem of all these jurisdictions stands a century of chaos and bloodshed that man has never seen before. Only now with changing political and social conditions within both the former Soviet Union and in the west are we allowed this new opportunity for reconciliation and unity.

Thus the chaos of the 20th c produced the chaotic jurisdictional situation which truly was not the most canonically proper arrangement. This is largely what produced the situation that we found ourselves as Orthodox with but we still had a responsibility for our people through this jurisdictional reality. So describing everything about the appearance of jurisdictions as uncanonical is only partially and not entirely correct. Jurisdictions still served their people, they still built churches and sent priests as available. There was a church to maintain on the spiritual and adminstrative level. And that in extremely difficult circumstances.

So I think we need to recognise what was proper and indeed largely canonical about this for it is our legacy. And we also need to recognise what was not proper and largely not canonical in this situation. In my opinion, for the project of unity to bear fruit we need to be able to call on that which was proper in our past. It is this past for good and bad which has influenced the reality of parish and church life as we know it now. Ideals are important- but they must work with reality to have any chance of success.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Mark,

The Universal Resource Locator is:


http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060724/51767274.html

[Fr Aaron Warwick]

Dear Kosta,

Let me start out by saying that I am an Antiochian Archdiocesan seminarian about to begin studies this fall. I would like to respond to your post which contains much misinformation and sweeping generalizations.

First, I am sorry that you feel so strongly that Orthodox administrative unity will not happen in our lifetime or the next generation. Perhaps, unless we have received some divine revelation to the contrary, we should say that we do not foresee it happening, but that we pray God's will be done in this area. There is no need to be cynical about this topic; that does not help. Instead, we should hope for a supernatural influence. In fact, when I became Orthodox five years ago, I did not think the Moscow/ROCOR schism would ever end. Yet, here we are, five years later, and the churches are almost in eucharistic communion! Thanks be to God!

Second, you seem to be ignorant of some things Metropolitan PHILIP has done (not just said) to promote unity. Two quick examples: (1) Ligonier, PA. Do a google search for Ligonier and include words like "Ligonier," "Orthodox," "unity," etc. I am sure you will find some useful information. (2) Metropolitan PHILIP is currently Vice-President of SCOBA. At his urging, the topic of Orthodox administrative unity was discussed among the bishops at a recent SCOBA meeting. This was only done upon Metropolitan PHILIP's urging.

Third, you have made very broad and inaccurate (not to mention outdated) accusations about the Antiochian Archdiocese. One would think that you have very limited exposure to AA churches or that, perhaps, you have not visited any in the past 20 years. Nonetheless, the dynamics of parish life differ so much from parish to parish, not to mention from diocese to diocese, that your claim that the OCA is "conservative" and the AA "liberal" is absurd. My experience has, in fact, been the exact opposite.

Fourth, Metropolitan PHILIP does not, to my knowledge, have any constituents. He has a flock to whom God has entrusted him. He is a human being, to be sure, but he has done some very good things for American Orthodoxy over the past 40 years. The number of parishes have probably quadrupled during his tenure. He turned one of the most closed Archdioceses into one that most people now recognize as being the most "evangelistic" in America. Finally, contrary to your claims, he has been one of the only bishops in America to actually do something to plant the seeds for Orthodox unity in America.

Aaron

[Mark Harrison]

Dear Kosta,


Second, you seem to be ignorant of some things Metropolitan PHILIP has done (not just said) to promote unity. Two quick examples: (1) Ligonier, PA. Do a google search for Ligonier and include words like "Ligonier," "Orthodox," "unity," etc. I am sure you will find some useful information. (2) Metropolitan PHILIP is currently Vice-President of SCOBA. At his urging, the topic of Orthodox administrative unity was discussed among the bishops at a recent SCOBA meeting. This was only done upon Metropolitan PHILIP's urging.

Third, you have made very broad and inaccurate (not to mention outdated) accusations about the Antiochian Archdiocese. One would think that you have very limited exposure to AA churches or that, perhaps, you have not visited any in the past 20 years. Nonetheless, the dynamics of parish life differ so much from parish to parish, not to mention from diocese to diocese, that your claim that the OCA is "conservative" and the AA "liberal" is absurd. My experience has, in fact, been the exact opposite.

Aaron

I have to add my voice to Aaron's here. BTW, Aaron, where will you be going to seminary - SVS?

I was still at SVS at the time of the 1994 Ligonier Conference. Just recently I watched the video made at that conference. If you have not seen it, Kosta, you should.

I am not a big fan of Metropolitan PHILIP (and please, let's do remember that whether or not we like certain things he has done, he is still Metropoolitan-Archbishop); I was at SVS when the whole Joseph Allen affair went down. For those who don't know what I am talking about, just be glad you don't, and don't ask anyone to explain it. The only thing I'll repeat about it here is that His Eminence invoked 'oikonomia' but what he did was far from being 'good management.' All I, and others who were more closely involved, saw was grief and pain; the result of a gross violation of a very fundamental canonical principle. At the same time, I have never met His Eminence. I do not pretend to know the man, so all I can say is that the evidence before me suggests that he made a major mistake. I cannot and will not condemn him personally.

I had many Antiochian student friends who have many good things to say about +PHILIP. One fellow student was assigned to the parish in San Diego after we graduated. That's where I grew up. When I visited him, he told me of a struggle he was having with Uniates and people trying to pay him to commune the Uniates. Of course, he didn't do it, but just to be well armed, he discussed it with +PHILIP, whose response was, 'never since Judas Iscariot has the Lord's Body and Blood been up for sale.' What better response could anyone give? Metropolitan PHILIP is not perfect, but looking back at things now, he's not the heretic or whatever else some like to make him out to be. Mind you, last Summer it was the Antiochians that pulled out of the NCC. There was a move in the OCA to do the same, but it failed.

Above all, I believe that Metropolitan PHILIP, from my impressions, is a a pragmatist. When he does things that appear to be off the wall, questionable canonically, it is usually to achieve a practical goal. The mass ordination of AEOM clergy is an excellent example. Yes, it contravened the letter of the canon, but if one looks as the purpose and the spirit of the canon, there really was no conflict, and going around to do so many ordinations would have been impractical. The history behind the requirement to only have one ordination to a particular major order in a Liturgy is that the cleric was supposed to serve the particular community for which he was being ordained. In this case, the whole large segments of the AEOM community gathered in a few places to have their clergy ordained. Technically, on the surface, it was a violation, but on a deeper level, it actually preserved the logic and intent of the canon.

I lived in a former AEOM parish for seven years before I came to St Heman Seminary. That was just after I graduated from SVS. I continued to identify myself as OCA the whole time. Nevertheless, I don't think I have met a more conservative parish even in ROCOR. The best part is that HOly Cross takes that commitment to the Orthodox Faith and translates it into action, within the parish community and toward the surrounding community. The Divine Liturgy is the centre of parish life, from their al mission proceeds and all mission returns to it. There is worship every morning and evening for those who can attend, but no one is looked down on for not being as zealous or able as others. The canonical fasts are strictly observed at the church, and everybody follows them at home to the best of their ability. I dare say most of the adult members of that congregation know the Fathers better than I do. They have a strong healthy relationship with the Monastery of St John the Forerunner, which is nearby, and is a dependency of St Anthony's in Arizona. If women, especially but not solely, have spiritual issues, Fr Joseph recommends that they visit Gerontissa Evpraxia.Many adult men make annual visits to St Anthony's. Thus, the monastic life informs the parish to a large extent. There are no pews in the temple and Fr Joseph wears his cassock on regular basis.

Metropolitan PHILIP's logic is that we should dress as people in our society expect clergy dress. He and others would point out that even St Tikhon went to certain events in a suit, rather than his riassa. I hardly doubt that St Tikhon was ashamed of his cassock. I suspect that he figured that it was the better path under some circumstances - the one that would meet the needs of the moment. I do feel that +PHILIP goes too far; my experience suggests that he is incorrect about how people see us. As our dean here points out, with all of the child abuse scandals among Roman Catholics, looking like one may not be a good idea. He tells us that he is frequently stopped as he walks around town and asked questions. He equates it to a police officer wearing his uniform. Does a cop need his uniform to tell him he's a cop?

About unity: Ligionier was a major event. All but a couple of the Orthodox hierarchs in North America gathered and instead of just talking a lot of hot air about the glories of Byzantium and their own dioceses, they worked together and the results were amazing. Why have we not seen any fruits of those efforts, mostly because of Patriarch BARTHOLOMEW, who required the Greek bishops to rescind their signatures. He said the whole thing was uncanonical, no doubt based on typical the EP interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon (that's a guess). Saidna +PHILIP was the host and the driving force behind the Ligonier conference. He and Abp NATHANIEL are the ones pushing for people to start doing something about unity instead of just talking about it. In all of my years in the OCA, I have yet to see anyone really pick up the ball and run with it. I have heard about appeals from Metropolitan PHILIP to begin by joining certain departments and the OCA has consistently dropped the ball.

The Patriarchate of Antioch may or may not want to see its North American Archdiocese become part of an independent unified church in North America. I don't really know. Patriarch IGNATIUS, from what little I know, is a reasonably enlightend, educated man, but that's a lot of $$$ to be losing. Personally I don't see why unity in America and autocephaly has to mean that the 'mother' churches lose support from America; if anything, I think a united American Church would be in a better position to provide support, but perhaps I'm naive in such matters. The real issue here is that whether or not Antioch likes it, Metropolitan PHILIP has shown time and again, for better and for worse, that he is willing to stick his neck out and he is willing to go to the mat. If he plots a specific course for administrative unity, Damascus will be hard pressed to stop him. The EP might support Damascus, but the Russians will support the move for autocephaly, at least in principle. They've already done so.

Metropolitan PHILIP has certainly done a number of controversial things. I personally would prefer to not be in direct obedience to him. That does not mean that I cannot see and praise the good things he has done, and working for unity is one of the biggest.

[Scott Pierson]

The MP can and has thought about rescinding the tomos of autocephaly granted to the OCA.


Has a patriarch ever done something like that in the past ? I mean rescinding someone elses autocehpaly? Does that fact that the MP gave autocepahly mean they can take it away or is it one of those things once given it takes an eccumenical council to rescind ? If all the heads of the autocehpalus churchs are in theory equal in power that would seem odd if they could. Could the EP take back the auotcephaly of the Russian Church ? *

* Please note I'm not trying to claim that the OCA is comprable to the MP obviously the OCA hasnt been around for a thousand years and whereas there is doubt in the minds of some as to OCA autocephaly there isnt any in regards to the MP. But if the MP grants autocephaly it must mean they really believe it exists (unless it was some sort of prank) and if they belive it exists how can they take it away? Unless maybe there was some sort of clause in the grant that states "if things go bad we can take this back " ?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott Pierson wrote:


Has a patriarch ever done something like that in the past ? I mean rescinding someone elses autocehpaly? Does that fact that the MP gave autocepahly mean they can take it away or is it one of those things once given it takes an eccumenical council to rescind ? If all the heads of the autocehpalus churchs are in theory equal in power that would seem odd if they could. Could the EP take back the auotcephaly of the Russian Church ?


Yes I wonder about this myself and doubt the MP would ever do this. First off I don't think that there's any canonical precedent for rescinding autocephaly especially by the very church that granted it. But it has very often happened before that not all churches have recognised the autocephalous status of a particular church. This actually is the present situation between Constaninople & the OCA since Constantinople has not yet recognised the OCA's autocephalous status.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mark Harrison]

With a large number of russian immigrants coming to america the ROCOR parishes will grow, Russia may have granted autocephaly to the OCA, yet the (MP) now has about 3 dozen parishes in america. The MP can and has thought about rescinding the tomos of autocephaly granted to the OCA.

The greeks and the OCA reject antiochs western rite churches.

1) Everybody I have spoken to who has a reasonable knowledge of canon law has agreed with the other opinions stated here: there is no precedent for the revocation of autocephaly. (Only the EP would think they could do that!) If the MP were to try such a move, the OCA would be sunk, of course, since the OCA relies on Moscow's support of its autocephaly. However, as one person I spoke to suggested, I think it is far more likely that Moscow will let the OCA destroy itself from within (if that happens), which it seems to be working hard at in some quarters (but I have been assured that we'll come through in the end), and then come in and clean up the mess. Reconciliation with ROCOR would just make that job much easier, if it came to it.

2) I had heard that originally Bishop ANTHONY (GOA) of San Francisco had forbidden his clergy to serve with Western Rite clergy. Given the fact that the EP at first excommunicated the entire OCA, when the autocephaly was granted, but then stood down from that position, I'm not so sure that Greeks in that diocese can't concelebrate now with WR clergy. I have not heard that this was a uniform policy throughout the GOA.

As for the OCA, I have never heard anything that has indicated that the WR Antiochian parishes are 'rejected.' There is no ban on concelebrating with them that I have ever heard of, and I have seen OCA priests at the altar with WR priests when the latter were serving in Byzantine Rite services. Of all the discussions I ever had with faculty at SVS on this matter, none ever suggested that WR was illegitimate, or uncanonical, or a reason for taking any negative actions at all. The OCA doesn't care to have its own WR vicarate. I think it's rather foreign to the OCA's heritage. I myself have attended WR liturgies on two occasions - and communed - with the blessing of my OCA priest. That does not sound like rejection to me. It especially doesn't seem likely to me that the existence of WR parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese is going to be an impediment to jurisdictional unity between the OCA and the AOCANA.

BTW - I am not a fan of WR myself. I have always had reservations and the two times I did attend a WR Liturgy I was not reassured by my experiences. I was even less reassured when I audited a WR class taught by Fr Paul Schneirla, the WR vicar general for the AOCANA. At the same time, I have had some excellent discussions with one particular WR priest that has led me to not be dead set against WR. If anyone cares to discuss the issue, we can do so in separate thread. I researched and wrote a paper on the subject while I was at SVS and I have thought about it in a number of contexts now. The issue is very complex and several sub-issues need to be sorted out in a proper discussion.

If anyone is interested in this topic, let me kow.

MAH

[Kosta]

I agree that the existence of a WR has many sub-issues. I am not saying that the WR are uncanonical neither, after all they are under a canonical Orthodox bishop. Most do not comprehend what the major issues against the WR are.
My spiritual-confessor is an OCA monk and parish priest. He spent 5 years at SVS and i can tell you that he (and atleast his bishop) are totally against the WR.
By jurisdiction i am GOAA and i can tell you my diocese is not thrilled by the existence of the WR neither. That such a project exists only in America and no where else in Orthodoxy is troubling enough. Orthodoxy in America in my opinion should stay away from such experiments, this country has always been the breeding ground of all sorts of religious groups that go awry and break away from their "mothers". The first WR parishes created (in Paris) are now schismatics (and probably heretics). There are uncanonical WR orthodox in america as well (and im not even speaking of those under the milan synod) Many have come across something called the "autocephalous american orthodox church" and it does seem that at one time they had some connection to legitimate canonical Orthodoxy (russian). Not only do they claim their WR but that they are the mother church of america !

But the W.R. in this thread is not my concern.

My concern is that while their is a fervor for a unified american church among the converts and many second and third generation Orthodox, Most of the ethnics are completely opposed to it! Of course you do not hear from them and you probably wont since many do not speak english nor use computers to post threads about it. But you will hear of it when schism occurs over this among ethnic parishes if an attempt for union is made
.
As far as Metropolitan Philip truly wanting one church, i simply cant believe it. I've spoken to clergy in my jurisdiction and he OCA about Antiochs yearning for a single church yet they look at me like im nuts. I need to know how Antioch views the autocephaly of the OCA.
If they accept it then the only thing left is for the antiochan synod to be absorbed into the OCA promptly. But this is not the case. The Antiochans have never contacted the OCA to either be absorbed into that jurisdiction or to hand over to them convert parishes.
Personally when potential converts approach me i direct them to an OCA parish. This is the most reasonable thing to do if the OCA IS truly autocephalous and/or were the first to evangelize America.
With the success of conversons into Antioch and their parishes growing, it is less likely that Antioch would be willing to compromise on what role (or lack of) their synod will play in a unified church unless, its overly favorable to them.
Yes much is said in pan-american orthodox meetings on this, but no one is serious about it because it would mean they have to make some major concessions.
SCCOBA itself makes no sense. How can these jurisdictions all be the canonical Orthodox churches in america, when the same canons only allow for one? If the Oca is the legitimate heir the rest are uncanonical, canonically speaking!(but not un-Orthodox). This is where i see the OCA needs to stand up and take their rightful role. It would be more powerful of a message if the OCA insists SCOBBA changes its name. SCCOBA should be recognized (and renamed) for what it is: an umbrella group of Orthodox churches which are in communion with the ancient patriarchates and each other, not a group of jurisdictions all being canonical, that privelege goes to the OCA only.

[Mark Harrison]

I agree that the existence of a WR has many sub-issues. I am not saying that the WR are uncanonical neither, after all they are under a canonical Orthodox bishop. Most do not comprehend what the major issues against the WR are.
My spiritual-confessor is an OCA monk and parish priest. He spent 5 years at SVS and i can tell you that he (and atleast his bishop) are totally against the WR.
By jurisdiction i am GOAA and i can tell you my diocese is not thrilled by the existence of the WR neither. That such a project exists only in America and no where else in Orthodoxy is troubling enough. Orthodoxy in America in my opinion should stay away from such experiments, this country has always been the breeding ground of all sorts of religious groups that go awry and break away from their "mothers". The first WR parishes created (in Paris) are now schismatics (and probably heretics). There are uncanonical WR orthodox in america as well (and im not even speaking of those under the milan synod) Many have come across something called the "autocephalous american orthodox church" and it does seem that at one time they had some connection to legitimate canonical Orthodoxy (russian). Not only do they claim their WR but that they are the mother church of america !

But the W.R. in this thread is not my concern.

My concern is that while their is a fervor for a unified american church among the converts and many second and third generation Orthodox, Most of the ethnics are completely opposed to it! Of course you do not hear from them and you probably wont since many do not speak english nor use computers to post threads about it. But you will hear of it when schism occurs over this among ethnic parishes if an attempt for union is made
.
As far as Metropolitan Philip truly wanting one church, i simply cant believe it. I've spoken to clergy in my jurisdiction and he OCA about Antiochs yearning for a single church yet they look at me like im nuts. I need to know how Antioch views the autocephaly of the OCA.
If they accept it then the only thing left is for the antiochan synod to be absorbed into the OCA promptly. But this is not the case. The Antiochans have never contacted the OCA to either be absorbed into that jurisdiction or to hand over to them convert parishes.
Personally when potential converts approach me i direct them to an OCA parish. This is the most reasonable thing to do if the OCA IS truly autocephalous and/or were the first to evangelize America.
With the success of conversons into Antioch and their parishes growing, it is less likely that Antioch would be willing to compromise on what role (or lack of) their synod will play in a unified church unless, its overly favorable to them.
Yes much is said in pan-american orthodox meetings on this, but no one is serious about it because it would mean they have to make some major concessions.
SCCOBA itself makes no sense. How can these jurisdictions all be the canonical Orthodox churches in america, when the same canons only allow for one? If the Oca is the legitimate heir the rest are uncanonical, canonically speaking!(but not un-Orthodox). This is where i see the OCA needs to stand up and take their rightful role. It would be more powerful of a message if the OCA insists SCOBBA changes its name. SCCOBA should be recognized (and renamed) for what it is: an umbrella group of Orthodox churches which are in communion with the ancient patriarchates and each other, not a group of jurisdictions all being canonical, that privelege goes to the OCA only.

You have some very good thoughts here. Quickly regarding WR, yes there are OCA hierarchs, no doubt my own included, though I can't say from direct knowledge, who oppose Western Rite and would never allow it to be used in their own dioceses. However, I do not believe that WR would impede unity between the OCA and the Antiochians. I suspect that a WR vicariate would continue to exist under the united jurisdiction.

I don't know how Damascus feels about the Antiochians and the OCA joining, at least not for sure. However, everything I heard about the AA getting its 'self-rule' status indicated that this was done specifically with the idea in mind that the Archdiocese would then be free to merge with other Orthdoox bodies. Even if that is not true from the Damascus side, I believe it is from the American side. I think you have a very wrong take on Metropolitan PHILIP. Whether or not he has support in Damascus, I believe that he does want to see unity - and and the OCA's Abp NATHANIEL. It is these two hierarchs who, according to credible reports I have received, are trying to get others to quit talking and start doing. You're right there's been a lot of talk and no action. That's what they've seen too. I know people who are well connected in both the OCA and the AA and aren't prone to idle talk. Whether or not the SCOBA meeting in Chicago will have any concrete results, we have yet to see, but I am confident that there are at least two ranking hierarchs who DO want to see real action and not just more talk.

You are no doubt correct that many ethnics are not going to want to see unity. This is why I don't think that ROCOR will be ready to participate in any plan for jurisdictional unity for a decade, at least. I think that the Serbs and Bulgarians will be more willing to join up first with the Russians, and that might have to be a step along the way. Whether Arabs would leave the Archidocese if it joined with the OCA, I have no idea. I suppose they might go to Jerusalem, but I've never heard anything that would support that notion. The Antiochian Archdiocese is mostly convert now anyway, and even many of its Arab clergy were trained at SVS and will not oppose unity with the OCA in principle. As a whole, however, I think that Fr Raphael explained the positive side of the jurisdictional problem quite well, and certainly any plan for administrative unity must address ethnic needs in a very concrete manner.

How does Antioch view the OCA's autocephaly? Well, it's rather obvious in a way: they ignore it, just like everybody else, including Moscow. From everything I have heard over the course of 23 years, I don't think the Antiochian Patriarchate opposes the OCAs autocephaly like Constantinople does, but the existence of the AA itself is testimony that Antioch is not actively recognising it either; but then, as I said, neither is Moscow. Whatever is said on paper or by mouth, the functional reality is that everybody ignores the OCA's autocephaly in a live and let live arrangement.

Strictly speaking, the existence of SCOBA doesn't make sense, as you say. But the reality we face is not according to the canons either, and that reality must be accepted and dealt with. That doesn't mean accepted and allowed to continue. SCOBA is an anomaly. It really doesn't have any authority as a body. In spite of this, it tries to work toward coordinating Orthodox efforts. That itself, however small a step, is a step toward administrative unity. International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) and the Orthodox Christian Mission Centre (OCMC) are both SCOBA institutions and SCOBA just broke ground for its own office building. Although they must act under the restraints of reality, they are trying to act where they can. This, if nothing else, is a testimony to what happened at Ligonier in 1994. The EPs hissy fit was a major disappointment for everybody because the hierarchs who gathered there WERE willing to take concrete steps and were slapped down. I guess this time around they'll have to plan smaller steps.

As for the OCA standing up for itself and taking its proper place as the autocephalous church in North America. I am sorry, especially since I am in the OCA, but I am not holding my breath. I think if my bishop were Metropolitan, it might be different. A lot of things would be different. He has a very strong personality and doesn't take no for an answer as a whole. Unfortunately, as you have possibly read in the secular press, the OCA is embroiled in serious financial issues and is really not in a position to stand up for its canonical rights, especially when it never has in the past. Personally, I direct potential converts to the nearest healthy, visitor-friendly parish I know of, whichever jurisdiction it belongs to. It is more important that a visitor to an Orthodox Church have a positive experience than it is that the OCA's autocephaly be promoted. I am most familiar with the Orthodox scene in San Diego and there I recommend an OCA parish and an Antiochian parish on equal par. If I were to meet a Russian immigrant, or someone who wanted a Russian experience of Orthodoxy, I'd recommend the ROCOR parish at this point. If I were to visit San Diego and had the opportunity to go to Liturgy, I'd pick the most convenient under the circumstances. Last time I went to the ROCOR parish.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mark,

You wrote:


If anyone cares to discuss the issue, we can do so in separate thread. I researched and wrote a paper on the subject while I was at SVS and I have thought about it in a number of contexts now. The issue is very complex and several sub-issues need to be sorted out in a proper discussion.

If anyone is interested in this topic, let me kow.

Yes it probably would be very infomative for us to take a look at the paper you have written about the Western Rite.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mark Harrison]

Yes it probably would be very infomative for us to take a look at the paper you have written about the Western Rite.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Frankly, it's not my best, but it is a beginning. There were areas I was having a hard time articulating my thoughts, and it shows, as I recall. For that reason, I hope people won't jump down my throat straightaway.

Still, how do we post documents? Oh yes, and I'd have to find it first. I do have it in electronic form on CD, it just might take a little time to dig it up.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Frankly, it's not my best, but it is a beginning. There were areas I was having a hard time articulating my thoughts, and it shows, as I recall. For that reason, I hope people won't jump down my throat straightaway.

Still, how do we post documents? Oh yes, and I'd have to find it first. I do have it in electronic form on CD, it just might take a little time to dig it up.

Maybe after saving this as a Word Document you could upload this as an attachment by pressing the paper clip symbol in the Reply to Thread Pane.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mark Harrison]

Father, bless!

Dear Fr Raphael: I started a 'Western Rite' thread in the Liturgics discussion forum under 'History of the Liturgy' since that is what my paper closely deals with. It did post successfully after a few attempts. The system absolutely requires the DOS extensions and it limits file size. I had to create a ZIP archive. I included two different versions of my paper, which, while they overlap a lot, also have some very different content, as I recall. One is the original paper from 1993, the other is a revise from 1995.

In Christ,

Sdn Mark

[Mark Harrison]

On another note:

I have been very pleased with the honesty, thoughtfulness and tactful candor I have found in this forum, not that it is really my place to be pleased or not; but I now feel comfortable asking a kind of thorny question, and I am confident that it will evoke constructive commentary, and not just partisan (jurisdictional) rhetoric. I particularly ask Frs David and Raphael: How do you see the situation of the OCA at this point, in terms of being a player on the Orthodox scene in North America? I am assuming that everybody by now knows about the internal issues plaguing the OCA. I am interested in external opinions from reasonably knowledgeable people. Because of the all-but-certain reconciliation between ROCOR and MP, and the OCA's historical relationship with both, not to mention my high esteem of ROCOR at this juncture, I am most particularly interested in the opinions of people in ROCOR.

If you do not feel that you can appropriately comment on this publicly, but are willing to do so privately, my e-mail address is markandersh@gmail.com.

Thank you for any comments, public or private. Perhaps we'll want to start a separate thread if the comments are made publicly?

[Kosta]

On another note:

I have been very pleased with the honesty, thoughtfulness and tactful candor I have found in this forum, not that it is really my place to be pleased or not; but I now feel comfortable asking a kind of thorny question, and I am confident that it will evoke constructive commentary, and not just partisan (jurisdictional) rhetoric. I particularly ask Frs David and Raphael: How do you see the situation of the OCA at this point, in terms of being a player on the Orthodox scene in North America? I am assuming that everybody by now knows about the internal issues plaguing the OCA. I am interested in external opinions from reasonably knowledgeable people. Because of the all-but-certain reconciliation between ROCOR and MP, and the OCA's historical relationship with both, not to mention my high esteem of ROCOR at this juncture, I am most particularly interested in the opinions of people in ROCOR.

If you do not feel that you can appropriately comment on this publicly, but are willing to do so privately, my e-mail address is markandersh@gmail.com.

Thank you for any comments, public or private. Perhaps we'll want to start a separate thread if the comments are made publicly?



This is a good question and i would like the incite of ROCOR parishioners as well. I'm also interested if any of you think that theres a possibility of the OCA and ROCOR (once again) re-uniting if all goes according to planned between moscow and rocor.
I'm wondering whether the OCA has been hurt by changing its name to the OCA, since this seems to have severed themselves in the minds of ethnic or 1,2,3 generation russians. Perhaps calling themselves the "American-Russian Orthodox Church" (just my idea). I would like to give one case study.
In Glen Cove (Long Island), NY, there are 3 russian churches within a few minutes drive of each other. These churches are also a few miles away from the OCA headquarters in Syosset.

These churches are:

St Seraphim- ROCOR and the lagest of the 3. Its actually located in the adjacent village (Sea Cliff) but just a 5-10 minute drive from the other 2 churches.

Lady of Kazan-OCA (still mostly an ethnic russian community)

Protection of the Virgin- ROCOR- the smallest community but the fastest growing.

We can agree that many russians have settled in that area over the years. But the one growing the fastest (my educated guess) is due to an influx of russian immigrants since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Both the Protection church and Lady of Kazan is located in Glen Cove. The immigrants feel more at home at the ROCOR church(es). If i were the OCA i would be alarmed at this. Since an influx of russian immigrants will probably continue for some time into the United States i would like to know if the OCA is doing anything about it to seize this oppurtunity. They have to realize that many russians will have interfaith marriages and bear children ,this will result in tremendous growth over the next few generations. Or will ROCOR reap the benefits?

[Father David Moser]

The question of the future relationship between the OCA and ROCOR is a pretty difficult one to address - mostly because no one really knows anything. I do know that the hierarchy of the OCA has received a few personal briefings from ROCOR about the status and progress of the talks with the MP, I don't really know what, if anything, has been forthcoming between Moscow and Syosset. The safest thing to say is that ROCOR will deal with her relationship with the OCA as well as with the other national Churches in the diaspora (our external affairs) once our internal affairs (the situation with Moscow) are put in order.

What will that relationship be? I really have to say I don't know. Certainly the OCA has her own internal problems (which, btw, are not new - its just that they have recently become public) to sort through. God grant that they are able to do just that. One of the issues that affects both ROCOR and the OCA is that neither one of these Churches has a clear idea of their actual "role" in Orthodoxy. We haven't really answered the question "who are we". The OCA is overtly the "American Church" but can't quite seem to figure out what that means -for example, the Antiochians have really outdone them in missions. ROCOR, otoh, has always been the "Russian Church" but at the same time has managed to attract a significant group of non-Russian converts (not just in NA, but worldwide) - and she still hasn't figured out what to do with them. Then we have this new influx of Russian immigrants and who takes care of them - the OCA has made some efforts to reach out to that group recently, but then to do that you have to compromise the "American" identity even further. ROCOR is often the natural choice for most of these immigrants, but then there is also the fact that the old immigrants (and their children/grandchildren) don't really accept the new immigrants as Russians (refering to them as "soviets") and then this whole thing really aggravates the question about what to do about the non-Russians.

It seems ideal that the OCA and ROCOR would develop a complimentary relationship, working hand in glove to address all their needs - but there is still a lot of old bad blood on both sides that will need to be resolved.

All of this doesn't really take into account the role of the other national Churches in the diaspora, especially the Greeks and the Antiochians. How do they play into the mix and what effect will they have on this process.

The reconciliation of the MP and ROCOR is not really the "end" but rather only the beginning for ROCOR in NA. (this "future orientation" was in fact addressed at the recent All Diaspora Sobor and some very interesting ideas were brought forth. I know that many of the hierarches in our Synod are very interested in how we can relate to the rest of the Orthodox world and are encouraging such cooperation) Having come out of our shell of isolationism, it is time to look and see how we can become a constructive partner in the Orthodox presence and effort in NA. As someone once said, "Why can't we just all get along?"

Fr David Moser

[Mark Harrison]

Thank you for your assessment, Father David. I was surprised to hear that there is friction between the old emigres and new generation of emigres in ROCOR, though, after thinking about it, I realise that I shouldn't have been. It makes perfect sense.

I believe you are correct in your comments on the OCA both in terms of being out-done by the Antiochians in terms of mission and an over-all identity crisis. I never really thought of ROCOR having an identity crisis, however. In fact, when I have been in ROCOR or Antiochian parishes, I have always perceived a strong sense of identity. My perception with ROCOR would be that there is an unease in many quarters regarding how to fit the converts into the overall picture, but that the very name Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia sums up the identity quite well. It is precisely that identity that led ROCOR to seek direct reconciliation with Moscow, not with the OCA or the EP, or anyone else. In other words, it has not been a generalised move toward reconcilaition, except indirectly; rather a move to effect a reconcilation within the Russian Orthodox Church, of which ROCOR has always itself to be an integral constituent part.

If there is any one major point of difference in self-identification between ROCOR and the OCA it is that ROCOR thinks in terms of diaspora while the OCA specifically rejects the very concept for North American Orthodoxy. Here I must agree with the OCA. I am not a Russian. I am not an emigre living in diaspora. I am an Orthodox Christian who was born and bred in the United States. I am 'in the homeland,' to use the phrase that I remember hearing in one petition of the Great Litany in the ROCOR service books. Obviously, that term is intended to refer to Russia in the service books, but to me, the 'homeland' must be the United States. Diaspora is a foreign concept to my own experience. If there is anything that I think the OCA has to offer to North American Orthodoxy, it is the affirmation that an indigenous Orthodox Church has grown here, one that can no longer be identified as 'diaspora.' This one conviction I believe binds the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese as more direct partners, or at least potentially. It doesn't mean that people in the OCA and the AA dont' recognise the existence of immigrant communities with ties to Europe. Those communities naturally do see themselves as being in diaspora. These two opposing self-perceptions create a natural tension, and this tension is, as you and and Fr Raphael have observed, a strong element in the lack of motivation to unite. However, would the MP tolerate having the Antiochians or the OCA creating a diaspora diocese in Russia? Would the Serbs allow it? No. If there came to be an entire sub-population of American Orthodox living in Russia, it would be expected that we would place ourselves under the omophorion of the MP. Yes, we might be allowed to form English-speaking parishes, but not a separate jurisdiction.

The biggest crisis that faced the OCA from the very beginning was a weak sense of identity as an autocephalous church. From the very day the tomos was granted, the EP rejected it and the MP was allowed to continued to have parishes on a 'temporary' basis, which has not been so temporary. This situation set the pattern of ignoring the OCAs autocephaly. Now, thirty-seven years later, ignoring the autocephaly is something that is taken for granted. The OCA has never commanded the respect from within or without to exercise that autocephaly, so what does it really mean? Within the OCA it means that our Metropolitan consecrates our chrism and our synod of bishops are not part of a greater synod anywhere. It means that when the Metropolitan serves, he carries the staff instead of the dikirion as he censes at the Little Entrance, and the 'diptychs' are read before the Trisagion and at the Great Entrance. It means that in St Nicholas Cathedral (MP) in NYC, the OCA's Metropolitan is commemorated in second place, whether he is present or not, and the administrator of the MP parishes in the United States is commemorated in third place, and only if he is present (or so it was in the early 1990s). And it means that other Orthodox patriarchates and metropolitanates don't attempt to interfere in our internal affairs. In short, it means a lot of liturgical symbolic gestures and a live and let live arrangement with competing jurisdictions. Is that really autocephaly? I do wish the OCA hierarchs would seriously tackle this question. I believe that autocephaly is right for North America. I want to see it work, but it requires a house that is in much better order than the OCA. I cannot help but wonder if other jurisdictions are going to be of a mind to work with the OCA as an equal partner given the sad state of affairs within the OCA itself, especially when there has been bad blood (as in the case of ROCOR/OCA relations) or even a history of ignoring the OCA's autocephaly, which is an act of disrespect, at least in that one area.

Now ROCOR and the MP are reconciling. Although the OCA may be informed of the status of the reconciliation process, it is clear that it is an internal Russian affair that will in no wise take the OCA's autocephaly into account. This arrangement doesn't appear to be an explicit revocation of the autocephaly, but it certainly doesn't affirm it either. It is another act of simply ignoring it, and to that degree, not respecting it. What does this say about the future of relations, not only between the Russian Orthodox Church and the OCA, but between the rest of the Orthodox world and the OCA? I cannot help but wonder if the OCA shouldn't be getting the hint that we are seen as a non-entity entirely, especially in the light of our own internal crisis, which has the theoretical potential to lead to proceedings that could kill us as a legal entity. Under such circumstances, I could see ROCOR, the MP, and others politiely serving with us, but otherwise working out relations with each other that ignore the OCA's very (temporary?) existence.

My big questions are: Are my perceptions well founded? Does anybody take the OCA seriously? How is the current crisis in the OCA affecting our relations with others?

MAH

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thank you for your assessment, Father David. I was surprised to hear that there is friction between the old emigres and new generation of emigres in ROCOR, though, after thinking about it, I realise that I shouldn't have been. It makes perfect sense.

I believe you are correct in your comments on the OCA both in terms of being out-done by the Antiochians in terms of mission and an over-all identity crisis. I never really thought of ROCOR having an identity crisis, however. In fact, when I have been in ROCOR or Antiochian parishes, I have always perceived a strong sense of identity. My perception with ROCOR would be that there is an unease in many quarters regarding how to fit the converts into the overall picture, but that the very name Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia sums up the identity quite well. It is precisely that identity that led ROCOR to seek direct reconciliation with Moscow, not with the OCA or the EP, or anyone else. In other words, it has not been a generalised move toward reconcilaition, except indirectly; rather a move to effect a reconcilation within the Russian Orthodox Church, of which ROCOR has always itself to be an integral constituent part.

If there is any one major point of difference in self-identification between ROCOR and the OCA it is that ROCOR thinks in terms of diaspora while the OCA specifically rejects the very concept for North American Orthodoxy. Here I must agree with the OCA. I am not a Russian. I am not an emigre living in diaspora. I am an Orthodox Christian who was born and bred in the United States. I am 'in the homeland,' to use the phrase that I remember hearing in one petition of the Great Litany in the ROCOR service books. Obviously, that term is intended to refer to Russia in the service books, but to me, the 'homeland' must be the United States. Diaspora is a foreign concept to my own experience. If there is anything that I think the OCA has to offer to North American Orthodoxy, it is the affirmation that an indigenous Orthodox Church has grown here, one that can no longer be identified as 'diaspora.' This one conviction I believe binds the OCA and the Antiochian Archdiocese as more direct partners, or at least potentially. It doesn't mean that people in the OCA and the AA dont' recognise the existence of immigrant communities with ties to Europe. Those communities naturally do see themselves as being in diaspora. These two opposing self-perceptions create a natural tension, and this tension is, as you and and Fr Raphael have observed, a strong element in the lack of motivation to unite. However, would the MP tolerate having the Antiochians or the OCA creating a diaspora diocese in Russia? Would the Serbs allow it? No. If there came to be an entire sub-population of American Orthodox living in Russia, it would be expected that we would place ourselves under the omophorion of the MP. Yes, we might be allowed to form English-speaking parishes, but not a separate jurisdiction.

The biggest crisis that faced the OCA from the very beginning was a weak sense of identity as an autocephalous church. From the very day the tomos was granted, the EP rejected it and the MP was allowed to continued to have parishes on a 'temporary' basis, which has not been so temporary. This situation set the pattern of ignoring the OCAs autocephaly. Now, thirty-seven years later, ignoring the autocephaly is something that is taken for granted. The OCA has never commanded the respect from within or without to exercise that autocephaly, so what does it really mean? Within the OCA it means that our Metropolitan consecrates our chrism and our synod of bishops are not part of a greater synod anywhere. It means that when the Metropolitan serves, he carries the staff instead of the dikirion as he censes at the Little Entrance, and the 'diptychs' are read before the Trisagion and at the Great Entrance. It means that in St Nicholas Cathedral (MP) in NYC, the OCA's Metropolitan is commemorated in second place, whether he is present or not, and the administrator of the MP parishes in the United States is commemorated in third place, and only if he is present (or so it was in the early 1990s). And it means that other Orthodox patriarchates and metropolitanates don't attempt to interfere in our internal affairs. In short, it means a lot of liturgical symbolic gestures and a live and let live arrangement with competing jurisdictions. Is that really autocephaly? I do wish the OCA hierarchs would seriously tackle this question. I believe that autocephaly is right for North America. I want to see it work, but it requires a house that is in much better order than the OCA. I cannot help but wonder if other jurisdictions are going to be of a mind to work with the OCA as an equal partner given the sad state of affairs within the OCA itself, especially when there has been bad blood (as in the case of ROCOR/OCA relations) or even a history of ignoring the OCA's autocephaly, which is an act of disrespect, at least in that one area.

Now ROCOR and the MP are reconciling. Although the OCA may be informed of the status of the reconciliation process, it is clear that it is an internal Russian affair that will in no wise take the OCA's autocephaly into account. This arrangement doesn't appear to be an explicit revocation of the autocephaly, but it certainly doesn't affirm it either. It is another act of simply ignoring it, and to that degree, not respecting it. What does this say about the future of relations, not only between the Russian Orthodox Church and the OCA, but between the rest of the Orthodox world and the OCA? I cannot help but wonder if the OCA shouldn't be getting the hint that we are seen as a non-entity entirely, especially in the light of our own internal crisis, which has the theoretical potential to lead to proceedings that could kill us as a legal entity. Under such circumstances, I could see ROCOR, the MP, and others politiely serving with us, but otherwise working out relations with each other that ignore the OCA's very (temporary?) existence.

My big questions are: Are my perceptions well founded? Does anybody take the OCA seriously? How is the current crisis in the OCA affecting our relations with others?

MAH

Just a couple of points here.

While it's probably correct to say that most Orthodox churches & jurisdictions do not in practice accept the OCA's autocephaly they do de facto accept that the OCA is self governing and that it has a canonical status as autonomous.

The chief sticking point to keep in mind in accepting the OCA's autocephaly has always been its claim (or at least it's heard this way by others) that it represents the only legitimate path for the Orthodox church in North America. This seems to mean to the other Orthodox churches and jurisdictions that for there to be Orthodox unity all Orthodox must adopt the identity of the OCA.

On the other hand most all Orthodox churches and jurisdictions accept that the OCA is self-governing and canonically autonomous. Perhaps then if the OCA stressed this aspect of its existence as a church more unity could be achieved. The difference is between claiming our church to represent the only legitimate path for Orthodoxy- which in a way is claiming that our church is the only legitimate church; and understanding that our church is part of the larger family of Orthodox churches on this continent which must work for unity.

The second point is that ROCOR's prayer for those in the diaspora doesn't mean the same thing as the OCA's understanding of what the diaspora represents. For the OCA (at least from my 15 years in the OCA) the concept of diaspora represents a kind of 'embassy church' abroad mentality and lack of commitment to a local church with its own culture and concerns.

For ROCOR however this is not what prayer for those in diaspora represents. The words used in the litanies in Slavonic- (razceyanii sushchich) are actually much closer to meaning 'scattered abroad' (like the action of a sower scattering seed) than 'diaspora' although this is exactly the word most often chosen in English for our litanies. So we're simply praying for those Russians both in the homeland and then those scattered abroad.

It should be noted that after this litany follows prayer for "this city,...this land & the faithful dwelling in them..." So taken in total context our prayer is very much for the local Church here & for its progress and growth, although for us that also includes Russians as well as those who are more culturally of local lands and cultures.

The answer to your last question, "Does anybody take the OCA seriously?" is I think "yes". The OCA has played its own part in the church especially on this continent. This is accepted increasingly so in recent times I would say almost exactly to the extent that it sees itself as one among the larger family of Orthodox families on this continent. From this it only follows that what is unique about it is offered freely to the rest of the Orthodox churches & in turn the OCA accepts the experience gained also by the other Orthodox churches on this continent. In other words our greatest enemies are claims of exclusivity by any one jurisdiction.

I think the answer to, "How is the current crisis in the OCA affecting our relations with others?" is best answered in relation to what has already been said above. Attitudes of "they deserve it" or worse aren't even Christian. The various trials our churches all pass through however do show that no one church has an exclusive claim to legitimacy. Each goes through common trials but each also has positive lessons to offer the rest of the Church.

Perhaps the predicament of the OCA as well as the other Orthodox churches on this continent would best be dealt with in this cooperative way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ryan]

When the reunion between ROCOR and the MP is finally in effect, will ROCOR join SCOBA?

How much can we expect ROCOR to affect the other US churches? When their canonicity is no longer in question, might their stance on ecumenism and traditionalism influence the other churches?

[Kris]

When the reunion between ROCOR and the MP is finally in effect, will ROCOR join SCOBA?

How much can we expect ROCOR to affect the other US churches? When their canonicity is no longer in question, might their stance on ecumenism and traditionalism influence the other churches?

Hi,

I would say: "not likely", "not greatly" and "God willing" :-)

In XC,
Kris

[Mark Harrison]

Hi Ryan,

I hope that either Fr Raphael or Fr David replies with something more authoritative.

What little I have gleamed has suggested that ROCOR will not join SCOBA in the immediate future. SCOBA just isn't their blend of chai, I don't think. If there comes a point at which their participation has real value, they might re-evaluate the situation, but I don't think they'll join just to be in the 'in crowd.'

Only time can tell how much ROCOR affects other jurisdictions, including the areas of traditionalism. However, my speculation is that ROCOR's influence WILL be felt. It's not just that ROCOR will no longer have a questionable canonical status; the fact that they will be under the umbrella of the Moscow Patriarchate will be very significant, no matter how autonomous they are. For better or for worse, they will be an extension of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is without doubt the most dynamic and influential (powerful?) Orthodox Church of the present time. They will certainly have a traditionalist influence in Russia - that has already been stated as a desired goal from the viewpoint of the Patriarchate, and the Russian Church influences the rest of the Orthodox world. If only indirectly, then, ROCOR will influence other Orthodox in the United States. However, I suspect that ROCOR will also have more direct influences, especially on the grass-roots level as more lay people visit ROCOR parishes. Furthemore, ROCOR has been doing something right. They have handled the pastoral issues surrounding the reconciliation amazingly well. Yes, there have been some who have broken away, but relatively few. They have been straightforward, and they have kept their flock informed. They have answered burning questions with solid answers, and backed them up. Certainly the OCA

[Mark Harrison]

Oops.

Certainly the OCA hierarchy and administration could learn a thing or two. ROCOR hierarchs have also shown amazing humility - truly saintly, and I don't mean that in a loose, sentimental, cheap way. H.E. Archbishop MARK and H.G. Bishop EVTIKHII both impressed me in particular during and after the All-Diaspora Council. Fr. Thomas Hopko emphasises the need to really accept one's own reality: the reality of one's own life, past and present. Were you're parents alcoholics? OK, accept it, work through it, move on. In just such a way, ROCOR hierarchs have faced the change of the situation in Russia and not tried to pretend that it hasn't happened just to defend their need to exist separately - their status. They have admited to failures in the past (as has the Patriarchate). This reconciliation is not about status or stature. It's just about doing what's right, even if it comes with a price tag. I for one certainly hope that they have a powerful impact on Orthdooxy in America and Western Europe. We all need it, and I am sure there are ways in which they will benefit too. For a long time I have said that no pan-Orthodox council would ever be truly 'ecumenical' if it excluded ROCOR. Now, maybe, the time is near; now it may be possible. GOD'S will be done.

MAH

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I think it is pertinent to remember that the union between the ROCOR and the MP that is coming about is a restoration of communion. It is quite emphatically not an administrative merger. The matter of participation in SCOBA is an administrative question, not one of communion; so there is no reason that restored communion between ROCOR/MP would necessarily suggest any change in the ROCOR's relationship to that organisation. That would be a decision that would be taken by the synod of bishops of the ROCOR, not as a part of the restoration of communion between the churches.

INXC, Matthew

[Father David Moser]

Hi Ryan,

I hope that either Fr Raphael or Fr David replies with something more authoritative.
...
Only time can tell how much ROCOR affects other jurisdictions, including the areas of traditionalism. However, my speculation is ...

The reason I haven't commented on this question is succinctly stated above. Only time will tell - all the rest is speculation.

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Act of Canonical Communion

We, the humble Alexy II, by God's mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place);

Being guided by the effort towards reestablishing blessed peace, Divinely-decreed love, and brotherly unity in the common work in the harvest-fields of God within the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and her faithful in the Fatherland and abroad, taking into consideration the ecclesiastical life of the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as dictated by history;

Taking into account that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia performs its service on the territories of many nations;

By this Act declare:

1. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, and other ecclesiastical bodies that were formed through history, remains an indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

2. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property, and civil matters, existing at the same time in canonical unity with the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

5. The name of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the name of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are commemorated during divine services in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia before the name of the ruling bishop in the prescribed order.

6. Decisions on the establishment or liquidation of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made by her Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

7. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are elected by her Council of Bishops or, in cases foreseen by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, by the Synod of Bishops. Such elections are confirmed in accordance with canonical norms by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

8. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local Council [ Pomestny Sobor ] and Council of Bishops [ Arkhiereiskij Sobor ] of the Russian Orthodox Church and also participate in the meetings of the Holy Synod in the prescribed order. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the established manner.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.

11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character.

13. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia receives her holy myrrh from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

By this Act, canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church is hereby restored.

Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.

The reestablishment of canonical communion will serve, God willing, towards the strengthening of the unity of the Church of Christ, of her witness in the contemporary world, promoting the fulfillment of the will of the Lord to “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:52).
Let us bring thanks to All-Merciful God, Who through His omnipotent hand directed us to the path of healing the wounds of division and led us to the desired unity of the Russian Church in the homeland and abroad, to the glory of His Holy Name and to the good of His Holy Church and Her faithful flock. Through the prayers of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, may the Lord grant His blessing to the One Russian Church and Her flock both in the fatherland and in the diaspora.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Thank you for posting the text, Father. There are additional materials available: The canonical Acts of Communion; an Addendum to the Act; and a summation of the work of the joint commissions. These are available in English and Russian from the obvious links here (http://www.stnicholas-oxford.org/events/news/index.html).

INXC, Matthew

[Michael Astley]

Here (http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/12ensecretarystatements.html) is the latest.

Blessed be God!

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Somebody sent me this. I don't know what to make of it. Can anyone explain it to me?

The bold font was either made by the author or the person who sent this. I have not got around to asking. The only change I made was to split some long paragraphs in half for the post.

ROCA - The Beacon of Light»
This was written originally as a response to a request for clarification of some of the issues pertaining to the pending Act of Canonical Communion between the ROCA and the MP. Some of the faithful are being confused by assertions that the ROCA must necessarily unite with the MP at this time or face dire consequences. These consequences include losing ROCA's canonical foundation, creating a schism in the Church, becoming a sect, losing respect in the eyes of the world, partaking in the heresy of Donatism, etc.

The positive reasons for immediate union are usually given as the claim that Communism has fallen in Russia, the MP has completely renounced Sergianism as well as Ecumenism and above all, that, the long suffering Russian people and the MP need the ROCA now. In other words, the best way for ROCA to help the Russian people is to unite with the MP now. If they don’t do it now, ROCA will not get another chance, and will become a sect and earn the contempt of the world

It is worthwhile at this time to sort out some of these assertions in the light of and to focus clearly historical fact on the real issues at hand: Donatism has nothing to do with why the Russian Orthodox Church, whether abroad or in catacombs cannot join the organization that calls itself the ROC, MP.

Donatism was a heresy that taught that the sacraments performed by a priest or bishop of low moral character, or who had fallen into grievous personal sin were not valid. This was, of course condemned by the Church because we're all sinners and none of us would then be worthy to perform them, not to say that we shouldn't strive with all our strength to attain to the high calling.

The fact that many of the MP hierarchy are apparently of questionable moral character is certainly not the actual reason why the Russian Church abroad cannot unite with them. This is a misleading teaching that seems to be generated to deflect the focus to a false issue that can then be handled through accusations of Donatism etc... Our differences with the MP had never been a matter of personal sins or moral character and people should take care not to allow them to be reduced to that.

The reason why we can't "join the MP" is very simple. They are a schismatic group that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1927 under Metropolitan Sergius and to this day remains in that schism. The fact that they have become very powerful, with the help and support of the atheistic government, is entirely irrelevant. They are, from their origin and to this day, a schismatic group that separated from the Church.

It is extremely important to understand what a schism is. A schism is not a division of the Church into two valid parts that are no longer in communion with each other. Perish that thought! That kind of teaching is the foundation of the heresy of ecumenism.

The Church is one. We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. By its own self-definition, in the Nicean creed, the Church is first of all One. The unity of the Church is likened to the indivisible unity of the Holy Trinity by Christ Himself in his prayer to His Father, just before His arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.

The Church is a living, breathing organism, not just a social, political or even religious human organization. It cannot be contained, prohibited or even destroyed. It is eternal and immortal because it is a body that is imbued with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God Himself.

It is the body of Christ and as such, it is indivisible, in as much as the body of Christ is indivisible. The living body of the Church is united and vivified by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth that organically unites all the members of the Church into one indivisible body, united in the Spirit of Truth, in God Himself.

A schism occurs when a group of people leaves the Church and consequently, breaks communion with the Church. This occurs, as a result of a falsehood or a false doctrine, which is obstinately maintained by the schismatics in opposition to the Spirit of Truth, Who is the very essence of the Church.

If the schismatics repent of the falsehood that separated them from the Spirit of Truth, The Holy Spirit of the Church, then they may be received back into the Church through a special rite of confession and absolution and by the reinstatement of The Holy Spirit in them by the Church. If they persist in their position that is in opposition to the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit of the Church, they remain outside of the Church. They certainly can never be considered as "another part" of the One Church that happens to be not in communion with the "other part" of the Church.

No matter how big or how powerful they become in the eyes of the world, they will always remain outside the Church until they repent and are received back into the Church through the mystery of absolution.

The following is a brief synopsis of the actual historical events that led to the schism in the Russian Church in 1927, that resulted in Met. Sergius and his followers, who eventually became known as the Moscow Patriarchate, to be outside the Russian Church.

From his youth, Met. Sergius was an extremely ambitious man who was obsessed with power. When the February, 1917 revolution occurred in Russia, he was quoted as saying that he hopes that perhaps now something of the sort may also take place in the Church. He didn't have to wait very long for his opportunity.

In the years of turmoil following the revolution, he tried to seize power in the Church in 1922 by heading a radical renovationist group calling itself the "living church". This was a group that sympathized with the Bolshevik revolution and broke away from the Church under the leadership of Met. Sergius and so it was, of course, in schism with the Church. But it did not get much support from the faithful and soon petered out despite the great efforts on the part of the godless government to arrest or shoot all who opposed it.

The living church bishops were trying to take advantage of the time when Patriarch Tikhon was under arrest to usurp power in the Church with the help of the godless regime. Patriarch Tikhon had staunchly opposed all attempts by the Bolsheviks to gain control of the Church and boldly spoke out against the godless atrocities and brazen lies of the Bolshevik government.

Because of the enormous authority that Patriarch Tikhon wielded not only in Russia but even with foreign governments, the Bolsheviks were forced to release him, still keeping him under very close observation and persecution. The release of Patriarch Tikhon served to quell the living church revolution and Met. Sergius then asked to be taken back into the Church, which he was, unfortunately in the same rank, after a clear public confession and a renunciation of the "living church". But he kept his eyes open for another opportunity.

The new Bolshevik government had a stated agenda to destroy all faith in God. At first it began to physically exterminate many of the faithful, starting with the bishops and priests, and to demolish most of the churches. Soon they realized, just like the Roman Empire did in the first three centuries, that it was hopeless and that they were bound to lose.

The Church, which comprised most of the country, was only becoming stronger and increasingly more resolute. Large crowds were following priests who had been arrested, encouraging them to stand fast and ripping off pieces of their cassocks to keep as relics from the martyrs on their way to certain death for Christ and His Church.

The Bolsheviks realized that they needed a new plan. Comrade Tuchkov had been selected for the job of destroying the Church. On Dec. 13, 1926 Met. Sergius was arrested and brought for a chat with comrade Tuchkov. When Tuchkov met with Met. Sergius it was like a match made in hell. Met. Sergius saw a great career opportunity and Tuchkov saw a chance to create a schism in the Church: Exactly what they were both looking for.

Met. Sergius emerged from jail on March 30, 1927 and was then free to live in Moscow with privileges that he did not enjoy even before his arrest at a time when almost all the bishops were being arrested and retained in jail. He began to be suspected of having struck a deal with Tuchkov.

It's not clear which one of them was the actual author of that hideous document that entered history under the infamous name of "Declaration of Met. Sergius". Most likely it was a joint effort, with comrade Tuchkov dictating and Met. Sergius obliging. The end result was that on July 29, 1927 Met. Sergius signed the infamous "Declaration of Met. Sergius".

This document not only created schism in the Church and precipitated the most vicious persecution of the Church in history, where millions upon millions of Christians were butchered for their Faith in the most horrendous ways imaginable (I personally heard some of the details from witnesses such as the new confessor Bishop Leonty of Chile, for instance), but most importantly it lay the foundation for the creation of nothing less than what may be rightfully called the Antichrist Orthodox Church.

Why? Consider the third temptation that Satan presented to Christ in the desert. Satan took Christ atop a high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the earth in all their glory. And Satan said to Christ, "all this I will give to you if you bow down before me". What did Satan want from Christ? Only one thing: that Christ recognize Satan's authority and submit to it. What did Satan promise Christ in return? Permission to operate freely in the world, subject only to Satan's approval, of course.

What would have occurred if Christ had agreed to Satan's proposal? There would have been many glorious churches built but they would all have been subject to Satan and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation. That church would have been founded and built not on the Spirit of Truth but on falsehood and belong to the father of lies, Satan.

When the Bolshevik government realized it cannot annihilate the Church they decided to make it theirs, to own it. In corporate business it's a well known principle that if you can't beat your competition, you buy it, so that it works for you .

The God-fighting Satanic Bolsheviks demanded then that the Russian Church recognize their authority and totally submit to them, just as Satan had done with Christ in the desert. In exchange they also promised to grant the Church permission to operate, entirely subject to their approval and direction.

What would have occurred if the Church had agreed to the satanic government's proposal? Exactly what would have occurred with Christ in the desert: some churches would be permitted to operate on a limited basis but they would be headed by Satan, not by Christ, and would therefore be incapable of providing salvation.

This point is so crucial that it cannot be over emphasized: If a church receives its authority from Satan or through Satan's servants, then that church is Satan's church and not Christ's. It may look like Christ's Church, even try to act like Christ's Church in order to deceive, but the real, living person of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with it. Such a church is totally the church of Antichrist and subject only to Satan.

Naturally the RussianChurch could not possibly accept any such offer from the godless authority. Not only did the Russian Church flatly reject this proposal from the Bolsheviks but, in the person of Patriarch Tikhon, who had that authority, it anathematized the Bolshevik government and all those who collaborate with it in their attempt to destroy the Church of Christ. Anathematized means they were declared to be outside the Church and no longer members of it.

But Tuchkov found one bishop in the Russian Church who was quite ready, on his own, to accept just such a proposal. That was of course Met. Sergius Stragorodsky. What Met. Sergius agreed to and signed was the document that he produced during those days in collaboration with Tuchkov in 1927, and this is what became known as the "Declaration of Met. Sergius".

In that declaration Met. Sergius claims that he not only recognizes the godless authority as legitimate and God given and totally submits to it, he joins it in essence and in spirit to the point of completely identifying with it. He then proceeds in the spirit of Satan, the father of lies, to declare that there is no, and never had been, any persecution of the Church by the Bolsheviks, and that the Bolshevik government is only exterminating the enemies of the state. To further demonstrate his oneness with the godless authority he then proceeded to fully collaborate with them in identifying and condemning to death all the bishops, clergy and faithful that had not submitted to him and to the godless government.

Now, if Met. Sergius had made such a declaration on his own behalf, it would have been bad enough, but it would have been useless to the God-fighting Bolsheviks, who were intent on destroying the whole Church. As such, it would have been of no further consequence.

But although he had no right and no authority to do so, Met. Sergius tried to make that declaration on behalf of the entire Russian Church. And this was the crux of it. The Bolsheviks thought that if they could have that declaration signed by the highest-ranking bishop in the Church, they could insist that it was binding for the entire Church. But they were mistaken on both counts. First, Met. Sergius was not the highest-ranking bishop in the Church. Met. Kyril, who had just been released, and Met. Peter, who was in jail at the time, were superior to him. And second, even the highest ranking bishop in the Church does not have the authority, on his own, to commit the Church to any new course, especially one that is completely unacceptable to the Church as a whole.

And so, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, who was the locum tenens of Patriarch Tikhon, and definitely the superior authority of Met. Sergius, distinctly forbade the latter to sign any such declaration on behalf of the Church. This fully legitimate order was sent to Met. Sergius in a letter, which he did not respond to. Then Met. Peter sent a second letter to Met. Sergius, which was delivered to him by hand courier. Met. Sergius also ignored that letter and did not respond to it. This was because he saw an opportunity to seize power in the Church and, with the help of the ruthless Bolshevik government, to extend and consolidate that power over the entire Russian Church.

When the Bolsheviks realized that Met. Peter was a superior of their Met. Sergius, they kept him in jail and eventually shot Met. Peter. Then they proceeded to vigorously support Met. Sergius by ruthlessly liquidating any and all who refused to sign the Declaration of Met. Sergius.

Some of the bishops did join Met. Sergius and signed his Declaration of oneness with the God-fighting government. They formed their own synod, that by no coincidence consisted of many of the old “living church” group, and declared themselves to be the supreme authority of the Russian Church.

But here's the very crux of the whole thing. The Russian Church, as headed by its legitimate leader, Met. Peter of Krutitsk, Met Kyril of Khazan, Met Joseph of Petrograd and scores of other high ranking bishops rejected the Declaration of Met. Sergius and emphatically did not join itself to the God-fighting Bolshevik government. The Russian Church, represented by its leader Met. Peter, strictly forbade Met. Sergius to sign the declaration that joined him and his followers to the godless authority.

When Met. Sergius ignored this directive from his legitimate Church authority and did join himself and his followers to the godless authority, the Church broke communion with him. Met. Sergius and his followers then fell under the anathema of Patriarch Tikhon that applied to all those who collaborate with the God-fighting Bolsheviks. They became an entity outside the Church and no longer part of the Church. In other words, they were then in schism from the Church.

The teaching that the infamous Declaration of Met. Sergius was a tragedy because it created a schism in the Russian Church is right. But who was the Church and who was in schism from The Church? Clearly, the group that was led by Met. Sergius were the ones that left the Church to unite themselves with the godless Bolshevik government, in direct disobedience to their superior, Met. Peter and many other bishops and in complete contradiction to all Church principles.

Two parts of the Church, not in communion with each other on a matter of principle, and yet both valid, but neither comprising the fullness of the Church is the very definition of the heresy of ecumenism. Such a view has never been considered in the Church to have any validity. Schismatics have always been considered by the Church to be worse even than heretics, because they rend the very body of Christ. They may only be received back into the Church after they repent of the cause of their schism and are absolved by the Church of the sin of schism.

Met. Sergius never did repent of his sin of schism and never was received back into the Church again, as he had been the previous time. Not only did he remain outside of the Church, in schism, but also he helped to precipitate a totally ruthless persecution of the Church in order to wipe out any possible competition and to consolidate his supreme position in this, his new Soviet church.

This total persecution, unprecedented in history in terms of scope and ferociousness, was carried out by the secret police of the Bolshevik government, the NKVD, with the help of Met. Sergius and his schismatic church. NKVD agents would arrive at the residence or jail cell of a bishop or priest, frequently pointed out to them by Met. Sergius himself or by one of his accomplices. They would thrust a copy of the Declaration of Met. Sergius at them to sign. When the faithful would refuse, the agents would often shoot them in the head right on their doorstep. Some of the bishops were dragged out into the street and impaled on a sharpened stake. Others were taken away and sliced slowly on a meat sheer.

All the while the Bolshevik government and Met. Sergius kept insisting that there is no persecution of the Church in Soviet Russia and that they are only exterminating the political enemies of the state and of the people.

Their blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth, The Holy Spirit of God could not have been more obvious. It would be worthwhile to recall that it was Christ who said that every sin a man commits may be forgiven him, but the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven neither in this life nor in the life to come. This is because when a man, through his own volition, becomes totally committed to falsehood, then truth becomes inaccessible to him, and repentance becomes impossible through his own determination to cling to falsehood.

This great persecution, carried out by the godless Communist government and aided by Met. Sergius and his followers, did succeed in killing or imprisoning most of the people of the Russian Church. A considerable portion of the Church went underground and became the ultra secret Catacomb Church. The other portion of the Church was forced to emigrate and organize itself into the Russian Church Abroad by the order of Patriarch Tikhon, which he issued on Nov. 7 / 20, 1920 as Ukase No. 362. The Catacomb Church and the Church abroad was all that remained of the Russian Church.

This remnant of the Russian Church was then physically separated into two parts, remaining completely in communion with each other in the Holy Spirit of God, as the One, indivisible Church of Christ and separated only physically by the godless regime but certainly not divided in Spirit.

The bishops that were forced to emigrate were unable to maintain contact with the Higher Church Administration in Russia and were required to form an independent synod with Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky, the senior bishop, as head of the Russian Church Abroad, in accordance with Ukase 362.

Patriarch Tikhon died on March 25 /April 7, 1925. The episcopate of the Russian Church Abroad issued encyclicals to all its parishes worldwide to continue commemorating Met. Peter and not to commemorate Met. Sergius. When Met. Peter was killed in prison, the Russian Church abroad commemorated Met. Kyril, the other locum tenens chosen by Patriarch Tikhon.

Met. Sergius and his followers were never commemorated by the Russian Church neither in catacombs nor abroad because he was regarded as a schismatic who joined the enemies of the Church and collaborated with them in the persecution of the Church.

When it became known that Met. Kyril was also killed, The Russian Church abroad continued to commemorate "the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church". This clearly did not mean Met. Sergius and his followers and successors, who had actually joined the persecutors and were even assisting in the persecution of the Church. It referred to the Orthodox episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church, the Catacomb Church. This was always completely clear in the Russian Church abroad and the fact of it was never in doubt until very recently, when an order was issued in the Church abroad to drop the word "persecuted" from the traditional phrase in litanies, etc... and to begin commemorating only "the Orthodox episcopate of the Russian Church" instead.

The Soviet government succeeded in slaughtering most of the visible Church that remained in Russia. But it was not satisfied with this. It also killed many of its own hierarchy, the followers of Met. Sergius that had joined them, who were no longer useful to them.

Met. Sergius and his followers joined the godless government that was persecuting the Church in an effort to save their own lives. They claimed that by joining with the God-fighting government they could remain alive and out of prison, thereby saving the Church from being wiped out.

This idea of saving the Church by actually joining with its persecutors, whose ultimate aim was the complete eradication of all faith in God, was not only absurd but completely foreign to Church teaching and practice during its entire history. This is truly Satan's idea as can be clearly seen from the words of Christ to apostle Peter when the latter begged Christ to not go to the Cross and Christ rebuked him sharply saying, "get thee behind me Satan". Christ created the Church precisely by going to the Cross, not by joining with his enemies. This is why the sign of Christ and of His Church is the Holy and life-giving Cross and not a negotiating table. His apostles, with the exception of St. John, all died a martyr's death for Christ and His Church. If there was ever a time when the Church would seem to be totally dependent on the apostles, it was in those first few years of its young life. But the Apostles certainly did not join the pagan Roman government or the God-fighting Pharisees saying that they could not afford to die or go to prison then because they need to remain free and thereby save the Church.

The Church always grows and is strengthened by its martyrs who confess their faith in Christ fearlessly before Satan and his world and triumphantly go to their death, only to live forever in Christ. The blood of the martyrs has always been called "the seed of the Church". To this day the Divine Liturgy can only be performed on the relics of martyrs who died for Christ and His Church.

So Met. Sergius certainly did not save the Church by recognizing and submitting to the Bolshevik government, but very likely he did help save that satanic godless government from collapsing. This became even clearer during World War Two, under Stalin's regime. Stalin unleashed such a reign of terror in Soviet Russia that he succeeded in liquidating practically all of the remaining communists that had actually committed the revolution in the first place.

Ironically, communist Russia under Stalin had practically none of the communists left who were actually involved in the communist revolution. This also extended to many of their collaborators, among them the group under Met. Sergius, because the godless Soviet government had no particular interest in preserving even their own collaborators after they were of no further use to them. Such is the nature of the satanic beast.

By the time WW2 broke out very little remained even of the schismatic group under Met. Sergius that the Soviet government called Church. The Soviet government had used them to help them annihilate the visible part of the Russian Church that remained in Russia, and were coming close to liquidating them as well. They had considerable difficulty in dealing with the catacomb part of the Russian Church because the latter was not centralized, not organized and extremely difficult to infiltrate.

The part of the Church that was outside the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad was easy to infiltrate, very difficult to influence (at that time) and impossible to control, because its bishops remained steadfast in their refusal to recognize the legitimacy and authority of the Soviet pseudo-church, as they called it.

Then something unexpected happened that fundamentally changed the attitude of the Soviet government towards the Church. As the German army began to advance into Russia, the Russians refused to fight for the Soviet government and, without firing a shot, began to give themselves up by entire divisions. The Germans were overwhelmed by the countless thousands of prisoners they had to deal with unexpectedly.

But if the Nazis were bewildered, Stalin was absolutely shocked and terrified. He clearly understood that his goose was definitely cooked, unless he came up with some amazing new idea to motivate the Russian soldiers to fight. And that's exactly what he did. Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. And Stalin was definitely in a tight spot.

Stalin had been at one time a seminarian of sorts, and he remembered how near and dear was the Church to the Russian heart. So he went on nationally broadcast radio with a heartfelt appeal to all Russians to defend their Church and their fatherland. To make his appeal seem all the more convincing, he began to open churches that had not yet been completely destroyed.

Stalin and his "communist" party even began to select suitable individuals to be made into bishops and priests under Met. Sergius. The Russian people were so desperate that even this pathetic ruse worked. The Russians began to fight and despite the phenomenal Soviet inefficiency and staggering loss of life and resources, they were eventually able to beat the Nazis back.

But a very important change had occurred. The godless Soviet government realized that the Church could be very useful to them, as long as it was their Church and they controlled it completely. Stalin then even went as far as to make his Met. Sergius into a patriarch. A year later Met. Sergius died. But the "Moscow Patriarchate" was born.

The Soviet government organization, that is still now called the MP, originated from a schismatic group of bishops that joined themselves to the godless Soviet government and were eventually made into a patriarchate by the Soviet government and subsequently greatly expanded by the Soviet government strictly for their own nefarious purposes.

Clearly the present day "Moscow Patriarchate" is not at all the Russian Church but rather a spiritual monster that was created by the God-fighting Soviet government by taking advantage of the ambitions and weaknesses of certain individuals in schism from the Church for their own monstrous Soviet purposes.

This fact had always been perfectly clear to the Russian Church in the catacombs in Russia and, until very recently, to the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in exile and in the Diaspora.

Soon the MP became an extremely useful tool for public control in domestic affairs and a potentially invaluable asset for Soviet influence in the international arena. The MP not only joined the ecumenical organization called the World Council of Churches, they presently became members of its ruling body. But to realize its potential for international influence the MP really needed to first acquire the ROCA.

There was one rather large problem though. The Russian Church, whether in the catacombs or abroad, never recognized the MP patriarch as a legitimate patriarch and, until very recently, the MP as a legitimate Church.

Even though the other Local Orthodox Churches of the world, as they began to be increasingly more corrupt in the twentieth century, began to recognize and accept the MP as the legitimate Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) was still holding out and was confessing to the world the illegitimacy and the spiritual invalidity of the MP. This was, of course more than a little awkward for the MP. It was completely unacceptable.

Immediately following WW2 the iron curtain was erected and the cold war era began. The Russian Church Abroad expanded hugely due to the large numbers of Russian refugees from the Soviet Union. Most of these people knew next to nothing about the Church except that the MP was definitely not the Church but rather a department of the godless Soviet government. They integrated immediately, almost seamlessly with the ROCA because of their common aversion for godless communism, and zealously set about buying or building new churches and establishing vibrant parishes.

The Soviet government continued to infiltrate the parishes of the Church Abroad and made many attempts to get them to accept and submit to their own "Moscow Patriarchate". Practically all of these attempts resulted in nothing more than scandals and remained fruitless.

The vast majority of these "second wave" immigrants remained very resistant to Soviet propaganda, having experienced the fruits of it first hand. The isolation of the Soviet Union's MP during the cold war years helped to preserve the ROCA for two generations. Eventually, the Soviet Union was exhausted by its own absurdity and collapsed. Ironically, the MP stayed totally intact as the only remaining thoroughly Soviet institution.

As the iron curtain was lifted, a vast number of new immigrants, referred to as the "third wave", began flooding into the parishes from the Soviet Union. Naturally, they knew nothing about the Church, having grown up as the third and fourth generation in the USSR where no Orthodox literature had ever been available and even MP church attendance had still been vigorously discouraged. But tragically, and this was of crucial importance, they were completely ignorant of the origin and true nature of the MP. Naturally, they assumed that the MP was the actual Russian Orthodox Church, as it was presented by the Soviet government, and that the ROCA was simply the extension of the MP abroad.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of them had no idea that the Russian Orthodox Church, whether Abroad or in Catacombs, was not in communion with the MP group. Most of them had never even heard of the Catacomb Church. Unfortunately very few of them, and by then, few even of the ROCA knew that the MP was not the Russian Orthodox Church but a department of the Soviet government that originated from a schismatic group of bishops that joined themselves to the godless Soviet government and were eventually made into a Patriarchate by the Soviet government and subsequently greatly expanded and groomed by the Soviet government for their own ends.

But nonetheless, due in part to the sheer numbers of these new immigrants in parishes, but mostly because of the spirit of worldliness and spiritual laxness in many, a new kind of thinking began to take root in many ROCA members and parishes. This was accompanied and supported by an enormous propaganda effort on the part of the MP. The result was that a new and erroneous concept of the Church began to appear in the ROCA. The spirit of worldliness began to prevail among many in the ROCA, regardless of their rank or position in the Church.

The Church began to be viewed much more as a worldly political organization rather than the mystical Body of Christ and the indivisible vessel of the Holy Spirit. Forgotten were the words of Christ to His followers when he said, "You are not of the world, as I am not of the world. I have chosen you out of the world. The world will hate you as it hated Me. But be brave, little flock, for I have vanquished the world".

As the worldly spirit, the spirit of the Antichrist, began to creep into the hearts and minds of the members of ROCA including some of the clergy and hierarchs, they began to view the Church more and more as a corporation engaged in the business of building churches, ordaining priests and "servicing the religious needs of the people", as the MP actually put it. This corporation could now enter into negotiations and consider mergers with other such corporations.

As a worldly corporation, the church now derived its validity from its acceptance and endorsement by the world, not so much by unbroken Apostolic succession or adherence to traditional pure Orthodox Christian doctrine and practice. Any corporation acquires respect and validity in the eyes of the world, based mostly on how large it is and how long it's been in business.

But the actual Church of Christ is not a worldly corporation. The Church is very special, unique, otherworldly, absolutely precious and very exclusive. It is exclusive because it is very different from the world and its members, albeit in the world, are not of the world. The Church is spiritually invincible, no matter how small the Church becomes by the time of the Antichrist. This invincibility was promised to it by Christ Himself when He said, "I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it". And membership in the Church is extremely precious. It's compared by Christ to the pearl of great price that the merchant found in the field and then sold everything he had so that he could buy that field. But that membership can be very fragile and can be lost very easily.

When Christ was arrested in the garden Gethsemane, apostle Peter followed Him into the property of Kaifa, the high priest, to see how it would turn out. One of the servants thought she recognized Peter as one of the followers of Christ and she said to him, "aren't you one of them?” Apostle Peter swore that he wasn't and that he doesn't even know Christ. At that moment Peter lost his rank of Apostle and ceased even to belong to Christ (he wasn't exactly a member of the Church yet because the Church only came into existence fifty-three days later). On two more occasions that night, when questioned, he denied being "one of them".

After His Resurrection, Jesus needed to reinstate Peter three times, once for each of Peter's denials that he was "one of them". Similarly, the Soviet government demanded from all the bishops and clergy of the Russian Church, "Are you with us or are you with them?" The bishops that signed the Declaration of Met. Sergius declared that they were with the godless government and not "with them", not with the Church that was under arrest and was being crucified.

To this day they have not been reinstated into the Church to say nothing of their rank of bishop, successor of the apostles. Naturally, the Apostolic succession in the group of bishops that followed Met. Sergius into schism with the Russian Church was severed at the time of their schism from the Russian Church in 1927.

The fact that many of them were also killed by the godless government that they had joined, does not make them martyrs for Christ. They had already denied Christ and His Church and joined with the godless government to save their lives and ostensibly to "save the Church". When they were of no more use to the godless government, they killed many of them, as they killed all their collaborators who had outlived their usefulness.

Now the MP is teaching that over eighty percent of those who they call the new martyrs belonged to the group that followed Met. Sergius and joined the godless government. They're still denying the martyrdom of most of the real martyrs who were put to death (with their help) because the martyrs did not deny Christ and remained faithful to His Church.

They are replacing them with their own martyrs, individuals who denied Christ and His Church to join the godless government only to become victims of that same government. This is all to further create the impression that they really are the Russian Church that emerged from the persecutions with their own host of martyrs.

This is a total falsehood. The MP is not the real Russian Orthodox Church. This is, as it always was, only propaganda and disinformation propagated by the godless Soviet government. They are an uncanonical, schismatic group founded on falsehoods and deception that usurped power in the Russian Church and consolidated and developed that power only by force and by brutal repression.

The Russian Church Abroad was always well aware of this and so every effort to get the ROCA to "join the MP" remained unsuccessful. The phrase "join the MP" was dropped and in its place new language began to be introduced to help the deception become accepted.

"Reunite the Russian Orthodox Church" became the new slogan. This had definite advantages over the previous language. First of all, it finally granted the MP, a priori, that elusive status of a legitimate, canonical Church. Second, the MP became de facto the "other part of the Russian Church" separated from the Church Abroad only by "historical circumstances".

Those "historical circumstances" then turned out to be nothing more than the iron curtain, erected by the Soviet regime. When the iron curtain was removed and the Soviet regime was reorganized and renamed, clearly there were no more obstacles to the "reunification" of the Russian Church.

This new deception was not accepted by the majority of the Russian Church Abroad. Many voices rose up in protest demanding that the real reasons and causes of the schism with the MP be addressed. Some of these reasons were dismissed out of hand by the Church administrations as trivial and of no consequence. The issue of "Sergianism" and the MP's vigorous participation in the World Council of Churches seemed to remain.

The MP then simply declared that Sergianism was irrelevant because it was all in the past and, as far as their participation in the WCC was concerned, well, they really were there only to witness Orthodoxy. This was perfectly clear and acceptable to some in the ROCA but completely unacceptable to many others. The ROCA by then was becoming increasingly polarized into three factions: ones who were in favor of immediate union with the MP, ones who were completely opposed to union, especially under current conditions, and a third group that just wasn't sure. The pro union group (PU) began to claim that the MP had renounced Sergianism and were obviously not ecumenists but rather witnesses of Orthodoxy.

The contra union group (CU) insisted on a clear renunciation of Sergianism by the MP and their complete withdrawal from the WCC. These objections were not a problem for the Church administrations because they now had a completely new concept of the Church. They would negotiate the differences between the two Churches, make the necessary compromises, which are the essence of any negotiation, and arrive at a new, mutually acceptable truth.

That was, at least, the plan. Both sides agreed to form negotiating committees and proceed as soon as possible. To make sure the negotiations proceeded smoothly and successfully, the ROCA team was carefully selected by the instigators of the union to consist mainly of pro union (PU) personnel, with the probable exception of one or two contra members who could be relied on not to create any awkward moments and derail the negotiations.

The rules, under which the negotiations were to proceed, were laid down from the outset by the MP. The past, and nothing in the past was to be discussed. "Sergianism" was off limits and the name of Met. Sergius was not to be mentioned.

Having solved the problem of "Sergianism" in this way, the committees could now proceed to address the real issues of administration that needed to be resolved, or rather, that needed to be explained to the ROCA. The ROCA negotiating team got the gist of it right away but they had considerable difficulty explaining it to the rest of the Church, that couldn't seem to understand that the MP renounced Sergianism. So much so, in fact, that the MP didn't even want to talk about it.

The contra union (CU) people still weren't buying it. The ROCA team then returned to the negotiating table with much hand wringing and asked the MP if they could possibly state something a little stronger concerning the "S" word. Some of their more challenged brethren weren't getting it still.

The MP commission then demonstrated their great patience and condescension. They conceded that "The state must not interfere in the inner structure, administration or life of the Church". That would be rather difficult in the case of the MP, considering the state still owns, literally owns the entire MP, body and soul, down to the last brick and kamilavka. The MP also assures us that, "The Church must support all good initiatives of the state, but must resist evil, immorality and harmful social phenomena..." That's exactly what Met. Sergius did. He completely supported all good initiatives of the state, (as defined by the state, of course), and he vigorously resisted the evil and harmful social phenomena that consisted mainly of all those unrepentant enemies of the state, mostly the bishops and clergy that did not support him.

And finally, to completely assuage the doubts of the most apprehensive, the MP clearly stated that the Church should always firmly confess the Truth, and that, "when persecutions commence, to continue to openly witness the faith and be prepared to follow the path of confessors and martyrs for Christ". Such beautiful words. Met. Sergius, the founder of the MP, could not have agreed more. He also clearly stated that there was absolutely no persecution of the Church in Russia.

Of course if there had commenced persecutions for Christ and His Church, Met. Sergius would undoubtedly have been the first to follow that path of confessors and martyrs for Christ. As it turned out, though, according to Met. Sergius and his MP, there weren't any persecutions of the Church then and only enemies of the state were being dealt with.

So did the MP renounce Sergianism? They will not even discuss it or even permit to mention the name of Met. Sergius. Sergianism is buried in the past, they said, and quite irrelevant today.

In a manner of speaking they are right. Sergianism, as understood by most people today is a betrayal of the Church, usurpation of Church authority and a hypocritical subservience to a godless government. That did occur in the past, quite right. That is how the MP was born. But what was born was a spiritual monster, a baby Antichrist church.

Born of the denial of Christ, baptized in the spirit of Satan, this church grew and developed on a steady diet of lies and deceit and has matured into a ravenous spiritual predator with a world-wide appetite. ROCA is not dealing with simply the issues of Sergianism or Ecumenism in the MP anymore, those are only symptoms of the spiritual condition of the MP. Besides, the MP is right, it really is too late for that now. It was a little naive of ROCA to think they could negotiate with the MP.

ROCA is up against a bona fide Antichrist church. In the spirit of Antichrist, it lures its prey with illusions and deceit. It even tries to panic its prey into submission.

These are the three great illusions and deceptions of the MP:
First: the MP is trying to deceive everyone that they really are the Russian Orthodox Church.

Second: that the current MP Patriarch is a bona fide ROC Patriarch and the current MP administration is the bona fide Higher Church Administration of the ROC, continuous with that of Patriarch Tikhon.

And third: they are trying to panic ROCA into believing that ROCA's canonical foundation is about to expire unless the ROCA immediately reunites with the MP, or actually, submits to the MP.

The third illusion depends on the second, and the second illusion depends on the first. Having become acquainted with some well documented historical facts, as outlined above, which the MP understandably refuses to discuss, it’s all too clear that the MP is not the real Russian Orthodox Church and that the MP Patriarch is not the real ROC Patriarch. It is just as clear that the current MP church administration is certainly not the Higher Church Administration mentioned by Patriarch Tikhon in his Ukase No. 362.

Where does this amazing notion of ROCA’s canonical foundation expiring come from then? Reverse logic confirmation of the MP as the legitimate HCA of the ROC.

Ukase No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon, which provides the canonical basis for the ROCA, contains 10 paragraphs. Paragraphs 2, 5 and 10 have a direct bearing on this question:

Paragraph 2 essentially states that if a diocese is out of contact with the Higher Church Administration (HCA), or if the HCA, headed by Patriarch Tikhon, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishops should form a temporary Higher Church government.

Paragraph 5 states that if the conditions in par. 2 become protracted or even permanent, the diocesan bishops must institute new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.

Paragraph 10 states that all measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the latter.

With regard to par. 2, the ROCA bishops were abroad and definitely out of contact with the HCA of Patriarch Tikhon. The HCA of Pat. Tikhon ceased its activity because Pat. Tikhon died and all the other members of his HCA were arrested or killed. So the ROCA bishops formed a Higher Church government.

With regard to par 5, the conditions above did become protracted and the ROCA bishops did institute new Sees with independent rights. With regard to par. 10, the central ecclesiastical authority, referred to by Pat. Tikhon, has not been restored to date and consequently the condition referred to in par. 2 has become permanent as has the independent authority and canonical foundation of the in accordance with par. 5 of the Ukase.

The notion that ROCA's canonical basis is about to expire is an indirect attempt to establish a priori the MP as the real ROC and its Patriarch as the legitimate ROC Patriarch, just like Patriarch Tikhon was.

The underlying false assumption is that the MP Patriarch and his Synod are the same Higher Church Administration that Pat. Tikhon referred to in his Ukase No. 362 and that the Central Ecclesiastical Authority of the genuine Russian Orthodox Church has been somehow restored in the MP and therefore, the ROCA must now submit to this MP.

In reality there is nothing of the sort. This is only an attempt to cloud the issue and create a stampede of the ROCA into the hands of the MP.

Once again, everything depends on whether the MP is regarded as a forgery, created by demonic powers on the basis of deceit and rebellion against the ROC of Pat. Tikhon or as the genuine Russian Orthodox Church, rightful heir to the ROC of Pat. Tikhon. Some people believe the first and see joining in canonical communion with the MP as a betrayal of Christ. Other people believe the second and build their arguments on that belief. Bullion logic excludes the middle position, of the MP as the legitimate ROC but its Higher Church Authority as illegitimate. Either the MP is legitimate or its not. It can’t be both.

What does all this mean? It means that there are two parallel realities, two worlds co-existing here. One is the Kingdom of Christ, the Prince of Truth. The other is the kingdom of the prince of this world, the father of lies.

Christ has built His Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Satan is busy building his own church of the Antichrist.

When the Apostles asked Christ about the end times, He started by saying, "Do not be deceived, for many shall come in My Name and shall deceive many". That is exactly the aim of Satan, to deceive as many as possible by building a church that resembles the Church of Christ in every possible way. But Christ said that fortunate are they who received the love of Truth in their hearts and also that His sheep know the sound of His voice and they will not follow a stranger's voice.

This idea of deliberate and intense deception in the Church is very prevalent in the Holy Gospel in connection with the end times before the appearance of the Antichrist.

Why will so many be deceived? Very simply because of their love of this sinful world. Christ warned that a person cannot serve God and Mammon (the world) at the same time.

The world, in this context, does not mean mankind or the beauty of nature. Quite on the contrary, Apostle John wrote that, "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life".

When Christ warns us about love for the world, He means the fallen world that lies in sin. The corrupt, the ambitious, the greedy, the envious world of pride and lust for power that runs on lies, deceit and flattery belongs to Satan, the prince of this world. The church of the Antichrist uses all that material for its construction. It is being built on a foundation of pride, constructed of lies and deception, cemented by laziness, timidness, carelessness, indifference, love of comfort and convenience and energized by lust for power and hatred for the Church of Christ.

The ROCA has always been as a lighthouse on the shore of a dark and stormy ocean of the world. Its purpose has been, and still is, to be a beacon of light and hope in a world overwhelmed by spiritual darkness and despair. It served as a compass and a direction for a world lost in the fog of compromise.

Its mandate has been to keep inviolate and pure the Holy Orthodox Faith and Tradition, free from any compromise with the spirit of the world. It was faithful to this calling and served it well by remaining separate from the world. You cannot save a man drowning in quicksand by climbing in after him. You must remain on firm ground and extend your handor a stick out to him. But to save him you must remain on solid ground yourself.

There is no question that the Russian people are in great spiritual need. This is exactly the reasonwhy ROCA needs to exist and cannot afford to self-destruct now.

ROCA has not carried the precious pearl of pure, genuine Orthodoxy all these years in very challenging conditions only to throw it away now, when the goal is almost in sight.[

Orthodox Russia was built and developed into a great Orthodox empire on the principle that God is not in might but in truth. The Soviet government tried to substitutemight for truth, and so its might crumbled.

Now it’s more desperate than ever to gain acceptance and respect in the eyes of other nations. They wish to join the league of civilized nations as they put it themselves.

That is why now, more than ever, they need to acquire the ROCA by hook or by crook, not only to silence the witness that got away but to reinforce the illusion of direct and legitimate historical continuity of the modern day Russian Federation with traditional pre-revolutionary Russia that ROCA represents to them.

This new self-image and vision of the Soviet government has naturally been extended to its MP department. Once the MP acquires the ROCA, all questions of its legitimacy as the Russian Orthodox Church and the heir to Patriarch Tikhon will finally be put to rest. Unfortunately so will all hopes of a spiritual resurrection in Russia. The MP has never given the Russian people any spiritual nourishment and it never will. Not because it refuses to but because it can’t. The MP is not a spiritual entity but only a political one.

The Russian people are depending on the ROCA to be there when they will be ready for what ROCA has to offer. The Russian people have been under a deluge of lies and propaganda for decades. They are completely drenched. They are now only beginning to dry out. When they dry out, ROCA will need to bring back the little flame of the true Orthodox Church that it carried out at the time of the revolution.

That little flame must not be allowed to go out by putting it out into the rain of lies that is the MP. It must be guarded carefully so it can start a proper fire when it’s time. That can only happen when the firewood is sufficiently dry and ready to catch fire. Otherwise, the still wet logs will not catch and the showers will extinguish the little flame.

The godless regime in Russia did not collapse after a few years, as was expected by many, and ROCA found itself dispersed, by the providence of God, throughout most of the world. And so now ROCA's responsibility is not only to the people of Russia but to all those who seek the Kingdom of Heaven the world over, regardless of race or nationality. Christ has many other sheep in other yards as well, that He needs to bring into His flock.

And that is why now, more than ever, ROCA needs to continue to live and to remain absolutely steadfast in its witness of Holy Orthodoxy and absolutely resist the spirit of this world that is trying to take it over and make it join the church of the Antichrist.

Nothing written here is really new. It has all been written many times before, and undoubtedly will be written many times again.

Every one decides for themselves based on what is in their heart. Pray, like you've never prayed before, that God grant you the love of nothing but the Truth in your heart, at any cost. If you are fortunate to receive such a love of Truth, then be prepared to pay the price for it. The price is going to be very high, but it will be worth it many, many times over. You will be one of those fortunate few who will escape the delusions of the antichrist and live forever with Christ.

Father Nikita Grigoriev
Rector, St. John of Kronstadt Parish, Utica NY.
Instructor of Apologetics, Holy Trinity Seminary,
Jordanville, NY 1986-2006

[Andreas Moran]

Can anyone explain it to me?

No explanation needed. It's nonsense. See the thread, 'Patriarch Sergius and the New Martyrs of Russia'.

[Herman Blaydoe]

No explanation needed. It's nonsense. See the thread, 'Patriarch Sergius and the New Martyrs of Russia'.

The members of ROCOR who are part of this board might better comment, but I have to agree with Andreas. This circulated a couple of years ago during the controversy leading up to the reconciliation. This is more of a reconciliation than a "union" or even a "reunion" since ROCOR has not been dissolved or even limited in its authority in any real way.

This is one particular priest's opinion at one particular time. Times change and opinions can too.

Herman

[Father David Moser]

Somebody sent me this. I don't know what to make of it. Can anyone explain it to me?
...
This was written originally as a response to a request for clarification of some of the issues pertaining to the pending Act of Canonical Communion between the ROCA and the MP.

So the first thing you have to realize is that this was a document written before the reconciliation. It was written by a member of the faculty at Holy Trinity Seminary (of which the majority of our hierarchs are alumnae). It was written at a time when there was a concerted effort to derail the possibility of reconciliation by fear mongering and prophecies of doom. Given all the above, it is certain that many, if not all, the bishops read this document and considered the issues raised therein. Along with the evidence of their own eyes, the years long negotiations of the synodal committees on both sides, the flood of letters, documents and opinions that were given, and of great importance, the views expressed by the all diaspora clergy conference in Nyack and the whole debate and process of the IVth All Diaspora Council and Hierarchal Sobor, the bishops then made the prayerful decision to proceed with this path. A full year after the Sobor (just so that there was no "rushing in") the formal reconciliation then took place at the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow. It has been nearly a year since that event and no evidence of the prophecies of doom have yet come to pass. We have elected our own Metropolitan, from among our own bishops and that was easily and quickly confirmed in accordance with canon law by Moscow. We have had complete internal independence to manage our own affairs. We have expressed our own opinions on Church matters which are at times at odds with the Moscow Patriarchate itself with no opposition from the Patriarch.





The reason why we can't "join the MP" is very simple. They are a schismatic group that separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1927 under Metropolitan Sergius and to this day remains in that schism.

This statement, which is at the core of Fr N.G's opinion, is simply one "interpretation" of the events of history - an interpretation which he goes to great lengths to explain in the following comments. There are other ways of interpreting the historical events, which do not reach te same conclusion - that the MP is "schismatic" Our hierarchs, enlightened by the grace of their episcopacy and with the awesome responsibility to "rightly divide the word of truth" and lead the flock of Christ entrusted to them safely into the Kingdom of God, chose not to accept this interpretation of the events of history, but rather recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as the true Church of Russia.



These are the three great illusions and deceptions of the MP:
First: the MP is trying to deceive everyone that they really are the Russian Orthodox Church.

Second: that the current MP Patriarch is a bona fide ROC Patriarch and the current MP administration is the bona fide Higher Church Administration of the ROC, continuous with that of Patriarch Tikhon.

And third: they are trying to panic ROCA into believing that ROCA's canonical foundation is about to expire unless the ROCA immediately reunites with the MP, or actually, submits to the MP.

The third illusion depends on the second, and the second illusion depends on the first.

Let us then look at the first "illusion" (or statement) upon which all the others stand or fall. Is the MP really the Russian Orthodox Church? For that I believe it is necessary to look to the example of St Mark of Ephesus. St Mark returned from Italy having refused to accept the statements and conditions of the Pope of Rome(as did the Russian delegation, btw). All the other hierarchs, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, agreed to submit to the Pope. Upon St Mark's return, then, the Church faced a choice as to which was the true path of the Church. The people, that is the laity and lower clergy, of the Church spoke as one, rejecting the path of the Pope of Rome and embracing the path of St Mark. The other hierarchs, returning from Rome, met with the "voice of the people" expressing the true path of the Church and repented of their choices and withdrew their agreement and led the flock of Christ on the path He showed through the witness of St Mark and through the witness of the whole Church.

Now lets translate this to post soviet Russia. The Church was faced with a choice (and it was a very real choice) to embrace the MP as the true voice of the Russian Orthodox Church or to reject the MP and turn solely to the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR as the true Russian Church. The Church spoke resoundingly with no wavering that the MP was indeed the Russian Church. If indeed we accept the witness of the whole Church, it then follows that ROCOR must therefore reconcile with her estranged elder sister and so restore the fullness of the Russian Church.

Fr Nikita is obviously a well read and intelligent priest with very strong opinions, however,the Church is led by Christ through her hierarchs, not by the opinions of seminary professors. We must trust the grace of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit given to us in the traditional and Godpleasing manner through the voice of our hierarchs.

In the end, I have to agree with Andreas and Herman that Fr Nikita's words have been shown by the course of history to be at best inaccurate (nonsense is perhaps too harsh).

Fr David Moser

[Kosta]

Then I guess all the churches under the Ottomons have fallen as well. That the EP fell even before the Turks made him into an ethnarc, perhaps at the pseudo-council of Florence and in reality we should all join the most extreme uncanonical group of the old ritualists, since this is what they have been saying for centuries. Has Fr Nikita joined them yet?

Yes and im sure if Fr Nikita got his way the 142 million real russians of russia, (not the tiny 2,3,4th generation russian descendants of the diaspora that make up ROCOR) would of all endorsed the foreign entity in the eyes of real russians (aka ROCOR ) as the real ROC.

As a greek im apalled and disgusted at the rampant self-hate of russians towards their own kind.

[Yuri Zharikov]

My sample size is not huge and may be biased but if one were to judge by the parishes of Toronto, Brisbane and Vancouver, 80% of parishioners, particularly in the younger age groups and children are recent emigrants, not 2-3-4 generation.

If one looks at the Sacred History it is easy to see that hatred between brothers is the strongest, although I am not sure why it is so.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


No explanation needed. It's nonsense. See the thread, 'Patriarch Sergius and the New Martyrs of Russia'.These replies are fine in that they give a short opinion but can someone who was originally against all communion with the MP from say at least a couple decades ago please explain it's "nonsense" paragraph by paragraph or at least a couple lines per two paragraphs at a time.

It is so precise and detailed that a few lines stating that it is not true is not enough to bring me peace. It sounds very true. That's what worries me! The person that sent it to me was a long term member of ROCOR/ROCA but has left us around March 17, 2007, and is trying to convince me to do the same. I need as good a case as he presented to bring back my peace of mind.

I need the help of a person qualified in Russian Orthodox theology. A graduate from a Russian Orthodox seminary in the West, not then connected to the MP so that I can get an unbiased explanation. The author of this article or paper is apparently such a person, so I need another to refute his statements. It must be Russian Orthodox because others, such as the Greek Orthodox seminary graduates would have concentrated on issues dividing their own Church administrations and jurisdictions such as the calendar issue and hierarchical membership in non Christian fraternities.

In +, James

PS - Has anyone else seen "the last interview with Metrop. Laurus md Bishop Gabriel" from February 2007? It was apparently online, and may still be , I don't know because someone sent me a DVD recorded from his Internet connection.

Metropolitan Laurus was asked what he thought would happen after we join the MP and he is heard and seen replying, "They will kill us!" in English with his Russian accent. Bishop Gabriel is asked about Patriarch Alexis the Second's former role as a KGB agent and he says that this is most probably true. I watched this DVD twice and do not want to see it again for a long time.

[Yuri Zharikov]

These replies are fine in that they give a short opinion but can someone who was originally against all communion with the MP from say at least a couple decades ago please explain it's "nonsense" paragraph by paragraph or at least a couple lines per two paragraphs at a time.

It is so precise and detailed that a few lines stating that it is not true is not enough to bring me peace. It sounds very true. That's what worries me! The person that sent it to me was a long term member of ROCOR/ROCA but has left us around March 17, 2007, and is trying to convince me to do the same. I need as good a case as he presented to bring back my peace of mind.

I need the help of a person qualified in Russian Orthodox theology. A graduate from a Russian Orthodox seminary in the West, not then connected to the MP so that I can get an unbiased explanation. The author of this article or paper is apparently such a person, so I need another to refute his statements. It must be Russian Orthodox because others, such as the Greek Orthodox seminary graduates would have concentrated on issues dividing their own Church administrations and jurisdictions such as the calendar issue and hierarchical membership in non Christian fraternities.

In +, James

PS - Has anyone else seen "the last interview with Metrop. Laurus md Bishop Gabriel" from February 2007? It was apparently online, and may still be , I don't know because someone sent me a DVD recorded from his Internet connection.

Metropolitan Laurus was asked what he thought would happen after we join the MP and he is heard and seen replying, "They will kill us!" in English with his Russian accent. Bishop Gabriel is asked about Patriarch Alexis the Second's former role as a KGB agent and he says that this is most probably true. I watched this DVD twice and do not want to see it again for a long time.

I know that Fr. Nikolai Dalinkevich from Melbourne wrote a detailed rebuttal of Fr. Nikita's treatise, although I have never seen it, as the reunion was never an issue for me. I am sure Fr. David or Fr. Raphael know the document I am talking about and could post it.

The best refutation that I have seen and heard many times was not actually words, it was a direct experience visiting Russia.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Br. James,
OK, I found the document. Please see this page: http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/voicesofreason.htm
The rebuttal is by Archpriest Nicholas Dalinkiewicz (http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/beacon_response.htm) - seventh from top. The page has also several other similar documents defending the reconciliation with Moscow.

[Kosta]

These replies are fine in that they give a short opinion but can someone who was originally against all communion with the MP from say at least a couple decades ago please explain it's "nonsense" paragraph by paragraph or at least a couple lines per two paragraphs at a time.

It is so precise and detailed that a few lines stating that it is not true is not enough to bring me peace. It sounds very true. That's what worries me! The person that sent it to me was a long term member of ROCOR/ROCA but has left us around March 17, 2007, and is trying to convince me to do the same. I need as good a case as he presented to bring back my peace of mind.

I need the help of a person qualified in Russian Orthodox theology. A graduate from a Russian Orthodox seminary in the West, not then connected to the MP so that I can get an unbiased explanation. The author of this article or paper is apparently such a person, so I need another to refute his statements. It must be Russian Orthodox because others, such as the Greek Orthodox seminary graduates would have concentrated on issues dividing their own Church administrations and jurisdictions such as the calendar issue and hierarchical membership in non Christian fraternities.

In +, James

PS - Has anyone else seen "the last interview with Metrop. Laurus md Bishop Gabriel" from February 2007? It was apparently online, and may still be , I don't know because someone sent me a DVD recorded from his Internet connection.

Metropolitan Laurus was asked what he thought would happen after we join the MP and he is heard and seen replying, "They will kill us!" in English with his Russian accent. Bishop Gabriel is asked about Patriarch Alexis the Second's former role as a KGB agent and he says that this is most probably true. I watched this DVD twice and do not want to see it again for a long time.

The only group that has schismed with Rocor over this, is Agafangel of Odessa. And i fault the ROCOR synod for ordaining a Ukranian. Ukranians simply dont like Russians and want nothing to do with the MP. In fact i have a friend who is a member of this synod (herself not a russian nor a slav) and has personally told me the hatred the Ukranians within this group have for Russians. The schism is simply a matter of rascism and nothing more.

[Yuri Zharikov]

The only group that has schismed with Rocor over this, is Agafangel of Odessa. And i fault the ROCOR synod for ordaining a Ukranian. Ukranians simply dont like Russians and want nothing to do with the MP. In fact i have a friend who is a member of this synod (herself not a russian nor a slav) and has personally told me the hatred the Ukranians within this group have for Russians. The schism is simply a matter of rascism and nothing more.

My father is Russian, my mom is Ukrainian; my sister considers herself Ukrainian, I'm Russian and guess what - we all love each other and the same is true about 80% of people living in or native to what today is called the Ukraine. In Odessa, where I am from it is true about 99% of people. I am only saying this to show that the post above needs some clear qualifiers; as is, it gives a picture that is superficial and distorted to the extreme. I am sorry to say this but if I was a moderator, I would delete it.

[Kosta]

Im specifically speaking about Agafangel's departure, the only bishop to schism who also happens to NOT be russian and most of his vocal supporters who attend his parishes also happen to not be russian. But it is my experience including a talk i once had with a ukranian priest under the EP that they simply dont trust the MP

[Olga]

I can also provide the following document:

From “The Voice”, vol. 6, no. 8, April 2007


THY WILL BE DONE


The 16 points of Metropolitan Philaret
By George Nekrasov

Those who oppose the re-unification of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate often base their views on the admonitions of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), the Third Primate of the ROCOR. As an Archimandrite (of the Moscow Patriarchate) in Harbin, China, he had many hard and harsh experiences. During the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards used to abuse him, spit on him in the streets, throw stones at him, and set his flat alight. He also came into contact with those Moscow hierarchs who were willing tools of the Soviet Government. When he left China, he unhesitatingly joined the ROCOR, and, much to his surprise, was soon consecrated as the Bishop of Brisbane (Australia) in May, 1963. Less than a year later, in April, 1964, to his even greater surprise, he was elected as the Primate of the ROCOR. In those days he was implacably critical of the Moscow hierarchy, so much so, that some of his detractors accused him of being “vicious.” (We shall deal with this aspect later).

In 1965 Metropolitan Philaret promulgated an Epistle in which he strongly and clearly explained the reasons for his implacability towards the Moscow Patriarchate. We should remember that before entering the Church, he had received a technical education and was a professional engineer. This inevitably left a mark on his methodology, in particular this was expressed in attention to detail and clarity of statements. For this reason his Epistle contained sixteen points which explained his implacable attitude. In those days it was impossible to argue against those points. Let us examine these sixteen points and see to what extent they apply to our time:

“...This is why, whether anyone likes it or not, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia will continue to exist and will continue to speak up in the defence of the Faith. She will not be silenced:

1. “For as long as the Soviet power will continue to conduct a merciless persecution against the Church and its believers, as can be seen from all the Soviet media, except the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.”

As of 1992 the Soviet Government and the Soviet power vanished “as the smoke vanishes, as the candle wax melts before fire.” Only its shards are left behind and there is no evidence of any Government attack on the Church. The point is no longer valid.

2. “For as long as there exists a Secret Catacomb Truly-Orthodox, as is being reported by the same Soviet Media, this Church by its very existence testifies to the persecution of the Faith and a complete lack of freedom of confession.”

The Catacomb Church has come out into the open a long time ago. The point is no longer valid.

3. “For as long as the Soviet Government continues to force the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate to lie, by stating that there is no persecution of the Church in the USSR, and that the Church is enjoying a full freedom in accordance to the Soviet Constitution. (Metropolitans Pimen Nikodim Ioann,... Archbishop Alexei and others.”

This shows how desperate the situation was in those years, and the struggle which the hierarchs had to wage as they attempted to save whatever could be saved. This was the so-called “Sergianism”, or a part of it. All this was condemned by the Jubilee Council of ROC-MP Bishops which was held in Moscow in 2000.

One may ask: “What about those who were involved in making those statements?” We must remember, however, the words of one of the Soviet Party leaders as he boasted that of the 30 bishops in office at that time, 10 were co-operating, 10 refused to co-operate, and a further 10 were pretending to co-operate, whilst in fact attempting to achieve something for the Church. We should remember that the principal KGB-hierarch, the former Metropolitan of Kiev Philaret (Denisenko), was not merely defrocked, but also excommunicated. Since the fall of Communism some 150 more bishops have been consecrated, none of them subject to any Soviet Government pressure. The point is no longer valid.

4. “Until the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, under orders from the Government mentions at least one church which was closed down or razed, whereas the Soviet media report hundreds and thousands.”

Hundreds and thousands were named - without any prompting. The point is no longer valid.

5. “For as long as the churches in the USSR will continue to be desecrated by the godless, being turned into cinemas, store-houses, museums, clubs, apartments etc, as witnessed by tourists visiting the Soviet Union.”

Following the downfall of the Soviet system all this came to an end. Today, on the contrary, visitors to Russia observe a developing Church life. The point is no longer valid.

6. “Until thousands of desecrated churches will be re-established as churches of our Lord.”

Churches are being restored, razed churches are being rebuilt, and new churches are being constructed. For example: the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, the Cathedral of the Mother of God of Kazan in Moscow, the Church on the Spilt Blood in Ekaterinburg, as well as a multitude of others. The point is no longer valid.

7. “Until such time as the representatives of the Soviet Government, wearing spiritual robes, cease to spread propaganda in favour of the godless Soviet System, thus dressing a wolf in sheep's clothing.”

The Soviet System is no more. On the contrary, today's rulers of Russia do not boast about their atheism, but make considerable efforts to appear as practising Christians; as undoubtedly, some of them are. The point is no longer valid.

8. “Until such time as the hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate cease to deny the horrible ruination of the Pochaev Monastery (Lavra), an almost total extermination of its monastic brothers and dreadful persecution of believers, including violent beating and murders, (Letters from the USSR).”

There are several aspects involved. First of all, all denials have ceased a long time ago, secondly, monastic life is currently undergoing a revival in all of Russia, and also in Ukraine and Belarus. Thirdly, the Pochaev Lavra is currently subject to a struggle between the Russian Orthodox Church, the “Denisenko” schismatics, and the Uniates. Fourthly, the persecution and even murder of the pilgrims, still occurs at times, but this is no longer due to any Government policy, but rather of the criminal remnants of the Soviet system. A struggle against them continues, and nobody denies it. The point is no longer valid.

9. “Until such time as the priests who are being indicted by the Soviet Courts are allowed to mount their defence through the Soviet media.”

This is now permitted. The point is no longer valid.

10. “Until such time as the torrent of falsehood, ridicule and mockery of the Faith, the Church, the clergy, the monastics and the believers generally, ease in the Soviet Press.”

Indeed this has not yet fully ceased, however, once again it is the work of the remnants of the Soviet power, but also of the `liberal” pro-Western Media. This has to be dealt with and in this struggle the participation of the Church Outside of Russia can be of considerable value. The point is no longer valid.

11. “Until such time as every believer in the USSR is given the right openly to defend and confess his Faith.”

This right now exists, and the confession of Faith is not a mere formality. We must remember the very ordinary conscript soldier, Private Evgeny Rodionov, who, when captured by the Chechens, refused to remove his baptismal Cross and was clutching it against his chest, even whilst being decapitated! The point is no longer valid.

12. “Until such time as the children and the young people are allowed to learn about the basics of their Faith, attend and participate in church services and receive the Holy Communion.”

This is now permitted. Once again there are forces which do their best to sabotage this freedom. A struggle against them is being waged. There are Orthodox High Schools, Cadet Corps schools where religion is being taught. The traditional Russian Orthodox Scout Movement has been revived and is growing. The Russian Diaspora was instrumental in all the above developments, and is capable of doing (and should be doing!) more. The point is no longer valid.

13. “Until such time as the parents who are believers are allowed to baptise their children, without any adverse effect on their career prospects, or personal wellbeing.”

This is now permitted. One can see many children attending church services. The point is no longer valid.

14. “Until such time as the parents who provide religious upbringing to their children are freed from prosecution for “mutilation” of their children, consequently being deprived of their freedom, with both the parents and the children being committed either to psychiatric institutions or prisons.”

This fight was lost by the godless power. The point is no longer valid.

15. “Until the freedom of though, freedom of activity and freedom of choice is granted, not merely to believers, but to all citizens of the Soviet Union, and principally to the authors and others involved in creative thinking, who are now subjected to particularly severe oppression by extreme methods.”

The “godless power” lost this fight and disappeared into history. The point is no longer valid.

16. “Until the Church and any religious communities in general in the USSR are granted even the most primitive rights... In other words, until the legal position of all the religious communities ceases to be equally deprived of any rights.”

These rights are now held by all kind of communities, ranging from the Old Believers to Hare Krishna. The point is no longer valid.

Thus, if we remember that the late Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), originally received an engineering and technical education, we can conclude that the above 16 points were, in essence, specifications for reunion. As one can see from the above, the very course of events caused ALL these points to be satisfied.

Nowadays a multitude of tourists and pilgrims in Russia can see miracle performing icons, the relics of the saints and new martyrs, they can see a blossoming monastic life, they can see an unbelievable scope of church restoration and building. It is significant that today there are more functioning monasteries in Russia, than there are parishes in the entire Russian Diaspora. This indicates God's blessing. We should also remember that shortly before his death in 1983, Metropolitan Philaret, whose incorrupt body rests at Jordanville, bequeathed his personal vestments to the Patriarch of Moscow. They were recently delivered accordingly and were received with due honour and veneration. (So much for Metropolitan Philaret's “vicious attitude” towards Moscow!).

During the 1960s and 1970s the Church Abroad marked each anniversary of the martyrdom of Tsar Nicholas and his family by a special prayer of repentance. The central words of this prayer were: “Deliver us through Thy miracles and grant glory to Thy name, O Lord...” When, in August 1991, the godless Communist regime shattered without any shedding of blood, it was indeed a miracle, and today the name of our Lord is glorified across all the vast expanses of Russia. In short, the prayer was answered.

We should also remember that during the entire first nine centuries of the history of the Russian Church, only two hierarchs lived to celebrate the 50th anniversary of their consecration. Then, in the 1950s, this was celebrated first by Metropolitan Anastassy, the primate of the Church Outside of Russia, then by Metropolitan Vladimir, the Paris Exarch of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and finally by Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow. This must mean something, for God’s work is no coincidence or accident!

George M. Nekrasov
Mt Eliza, Victoria, Australia.

[Olga]

Kosta, you may be interested to know that the newly-elected Primate of ROCOR, Metr. Hilarion, who did so much to effect the reconciliation between MP and ROCOR, is of Ukrainian stock.

[Herman Blaydoe]

These replies are fine in that they give a short opinion but can someone who was originally against all communion with the MP from say at least a couple decades ago please explain it's "nonsense" paragraph by paragraph or at least a couple lines per two paragraphs at a time.

Did you happen to read the more elaborate post by Fr. David a few down from the post you quoted and a couple up from your post?

[Andreas Moran]

The best refutation that I have seen and heard many times was not actually words, it was a direct experience visiting Russia.

As I have said before, this is true. The book mentioned in the thread, 'Patriarch Sergius and the New Martyrs of Russia' sets the record straight and shows what Fr Nikita said to be factually wrong There was no schism. Patriarch Athenagoras was not much better than Sergius but no one says that EP is schismatic. No patriarchate is perfect. But what right do those who were in safety in America have to judge those who were in the hell (for Christians) that was the USSR under Stalin and Khruschev? I repeat - let such as still oppose MP go to Butovo. To describe the Church of those martyrs as in schism, as satanic and not the real Russian Church is not only nonsense but blasphemous nonsense which decries the memory of countless martyrs whose blood has so watered the land of Russia.

[Anthony]

The only group that has schismed with Rocor over this, is Agafangel of Odessa. And i fault the ROCOR synod for ordaining a Ukranian. Ukranians simply dont like Russians and want nothing to do with the MP. In fact i have a friend who is a member of this synod (herself not a russian nor a slav) and has personally told me the hatred the Ukranians within this group have for Russians. The schism is simply a matter of rascism and nothing more.

There is quite a wide variety of opinions among Ukrainians, as among most national groups, and most of the generalizations one reads are unhelpful. Those based on anecdotal evidence in particular.

I agree with Reader Yuri Zharikov that this post is problematic, especially the second sentence.

[Andreas Moran]

From what I know, have seen and been told, a large number of MP clergy, both monastic and in the parishes, in Moscow and elsewhere are Ukrainian.

[Anthony]

There is also extensive loyalty to the MP in Ukraine (though as we know, there are divisions on this). But I don't want to go off-topic here.

[Andreas Moran]

We must remember the very ordinary conscript soldier, Private Evgeny Rodionov, who, when captured by the Chechens, refused to remove his baptismal Cross and was clutching it against his chest, even whilst being decapitated!

'And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and (I saw) the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God' - Revelation 20:4.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The only group that has schismed with Rocor over this, is Agafangel of Odessa. And i fault the ROCOR synod for ordaining a Ukranian. Ukranians simply dont like Russians and want nothing to do with the MP. In fact i have a friend who is a member of this synod (herself not a russian nor a slav) and has personally told me the hatred the Ukranians within this group have for Russians. The schism is simply a matter of rascism and nothing more.

From those within this group that I know in Canada I would say this is not so.

Many in Canada with this group are converts with little attraction to this aspect of things. Others are Russians of a way of thinking that is hardly Ukrainian nationalist.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Thank you Olga, for taking the trouble to try and bring me peace on this isssue. christ is Risen!

I don't believe the answer this person gives - "The point is no longer valid". He means well but is not in Russia. I found a website link in another thread that I read before. It makes the reply "The point is no longer valid" invalid. It cancels out the first two replies to start with and probably more but I won't go any further. here is the link http://www.roacusa.org/news.html if it no longer links, try copy/paste it in as a url in your browser. See what you think in light of what has been said by George Nekrasov. Is that a Father George Nekrasov? I've read that name before somewhere.

In +, James

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Br. James,
OK, I found the document. Please see this page: http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/voicesofreason.htm
The rebuttal is by Archpriest Nicholas Dalinkiewicz (http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/beacon_response.htm) - seventh from top. The page has also several other similar documents defending the reconciliation with Moscow.Christ is Risen!

Thank you Yuri for trying to help me with these links. The second one linked to the website. I'm afraid that I cannot trust the theology of anyone who calls God and the Holy Spirit "It". God is God and the Holy Spirit is a person in the Holy Trinity. So the pronoun He, Him or His is acceptable but not it. I've copied and pasted the offending passage below.


In case we feel that this is merely the personal interpretation of Fr Micheal Azkoul, let us look at St Basil the Great has to say.

Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves … [Concerning heresies] the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude of heretics should be set aside entirely; but as for those who have merely split apart as a schism, they were to be considered as still belonging to the Church

St Basil then comments on a specific group of heretics - the Pepuzeni. For us these comments have value in that they prescribe how heresies should be handled (as distinct from schismatics

As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned Montanus and the Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comfortor). They deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; accordingly they are thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable(8)Instead of saying "a difference of faith in God itself". He should have typed, "a difference of faith itself." or more accurately, "a difference of faith in God Himself". St Basil did not say these things, the writer is misquoting. How many more of his quotes are wrong? I don't trust him because he does not take care when talking about God and the Holy Spirit of God.

In +, James

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

It is easy to jump to overly-volotile conclusions when one doesn't attempt to read things in a proper spirit of peace. I'm afraid this appears to be very much in evidence in Mr York's post, above (pace to you!). It is a good and holy thing to read with a critical eye; but to make judgements on a person's trustworthiness based on an analysis of their grammatical style, which differs from one's own, is risky business. The first of the two examples cited in your post was:


Heresies is the name applied to those who have broken entirely and have become alienated from the faith itself. Schisms is the name applied to those who on account of ecclesiastical causes and remediable questions have developed a quarrel amongst themselves … [Concerning heresies] the question is one involving a difference of faith in God itself. It therefore seemed best to those who dealt with the subject in the beginning to rule that the attitude

On this you wrote:


I'm afraid that I cannot trust the theology of anyone who calls God and the Holy Spirit "It". God is God and the Holy Spirit is a person in the Holy Trinity. So the pronoun He, Him or His is acceptable but not it. [...] Instead of saying "a difference of faith in God itself". He should have typed, "a difference of faith itself." or more accurately, "a difference of faith in God Himself".

I'm afraid you've attempted to force the writer to express himself as you yourself might, and have judged his difference in style as requiring a theological error. But this simply isn't so. The phrase in boldface font in the quotation is clearly referring, with the word 'itself', to 'faith'. This is made abundantly clear by the context of the remark (in the text, he is talking about a difference between schism and heresy, as involving a breaking of communion or an altering of the substance of faith; in the phrase itself he is clearly referring to a difference of faith); but it is equally clear and correct gramatically. The phrase 'a difference of faith in God itself' is clearly and properly constructed gramatically, to use 'itself' in reference to the main object of the sentence. 'In God' is clearly a sub-clause clarifying faith.

Moreover, neither of your suggested replacements for what he 'should have' typed express fully what the author is actually saying. 'A difference of faith itself' does not make emphatic the point the author is indicating, namely that heresy is defined as an alteration of faith in God, and not merely in some external matter. 'A difference of faith in God Himself' changes the focus of his phrase so that its emphasis is not on a variation of faith, but the being of God. The author's actual intention is to speak to a variation in faith, clarifying faith in God. For this, his construction is grammatically exactly as it should be.

This seems to me a rather unfortunate result of attempting to seek out errors in another writer's text, in fact introducing them rather than discovering them.

The second quotation offered was this:


As touching the Pepuzeni, therefore, it is obvious that they are heretics; for they have blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, having illicitly and impudently blazoned Montanus and the Priscilla with the appellation of the Paraclete (or Comfortor). They deserve to be condemned, therefore, whether it be that they are wont to deify themselves or others as human beings, or that they have roundly insulted the Holy Spirit by comparing It to human beings; accordingly they are thus liable to everlasting condemnation, because of the fact that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unpardonable

To this you responded:


God is God and the Holy Spirit is a person in the Holy Trinity. So the pronoun He, Him or His is acceptable but not it. [...] St Basil did not say these things, the writer is misquoting.

You are quite right that in normal English expression, the pronoun used of the Holy Spirit is 'He', to emphasise the truly personal nature of the Spirit as divine person. However, this is a fairly standard convention, and is in fact interpretive. The Holy Spirit is in Greek, the language of St Basil, gramatically neuter; and this means that in St Basil's writings, as in all the writings of all the Greek fathers, the pronoun used of the Spirit is 'it' (Greek to / ton). The author of the text you are criticising is clearly given a slavishly-literal translation of exactly what St Basil wrote, rather than 'misquoting' as you suggest. You may be unhappy that he does not follow a fairly standard convention of interpretation, which involves changing St Basil's words so that they more obviously declare the interpretation the Church understands them to warrant; but it is quite wrong to accuse him of mis-quoting St Basil.

XB, Dcn Matthew

[Father David Moser]

It is a good and holy thing to read with a critical eye; but to make judgements on a person's trustworthiness based on an analysis of their grammatical style, which differs from one's own, is risky business. ...The author's actual intention is to speak to a variation in faith, clarifying faith in God. For this, his construction is grammatically exactly as it should be....The author of the text you are criticising is clearly given a slavishly-literal translation of exactly what St Basil wrote, rather than 'misquoting' as you suggest.

Dear Father,

Thank you for your perceptive reading of Fr Nicholas' text. As I count Fr Nicholas among my friends (having spent a week sharing quarters at a conference with him and his wife a couple of years ago), and having a deep respect for both his Orthodoxy and his intellectual ability, I was distressed (to say the least) at the suggestion that he might be careless and untrustworthy. Your comments only confirm the great care and thought that Fr Nicholas put into constructing his remarks.

Fr David Moser

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Dear friends, how about "faith itself in God"? Then the pronoun 'itself' is clearly used to indicate 'faith'. Like, "the problem itself was Hitler"; instead of: "the problem was Hitler itself."

I think that when we translate Greek to English we ususally use English rules of grammar in the English version and Greek rules of grammar in the Greek version. But your criticism still sounds professional to me.

I must thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply to my brief post. It shows you really care for people like me. I am overcome with gratitude and surprise that I can attract so much attention with little effort. May God reward you according to your intentions.

In +, James

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Please read the following written by a friend of mine.

A CHRISTMAS MESSAGE AND SPIRITUAL BEQUEST TO ALL THE PASTORS AND FAITHFUL MEMBERS OF OUR RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD, FROM HIERARCH METROPOLITAN VITALY

1. Love of power is the greatest evil. Herod ordered the slaying of infants, just so as not to lose power. But the Lord Jesus Christ came not to strike us with force but to immerse us in love.

2. Modestly and unnoticeably God became a human being.

3. Thus let us stay away from bad examples and let us put away any sinful lusts during these holy days. As to those who persecute us, let God be their judge; and let us arm ourselves just as our Saviour taught us: “In your patience possess ye your souls” (Luke 21:19).

4. We live in such a time when I could be kidnapped and someone may start to influence you in my name.

5. Know that while I am imprisoned, I will not be influencing you in anything.

6. Only trust in my voice heard live; never accept the Holy Communion of the Moscow Patriarchate “Church”, which was established by the KGB. Never transfer yourself to the Moscow Patriarchate, which one can never call The Church. The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is the True Church of Christ. Stay in it, confess, partake of Holy Communion, and baptize your children …, because this is a genuine and not a counterfeit Russian Church.

7. Our Lord God promised us that the True Church will overcome all obstacles and will survive till the end of time.

8. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, will defeat everyone; He will conquer and bring everyone to His feet. But before that time comes, you will be persecuted, tormented, mocked and will be considered as halfwits.

9. Be patient, for you will become fools for Christ. Do thank God for everything with this short prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Plead for mercy, and if we will receive forgiveness from God, then what concern is it to us if we will be considered crazy?

10. Try to pray with all your heart, for when you pray with your heart, your whole being prays. Your prayer will reach the throne of our Almighty Lord Jesus Christ, the omnipotent, eternal God, from whom you will receive such grace, and such strength, just as did the first martyrs of Christ.

11. For your standing firmly in truth, my beloved priests, clergy and deacons, you will receive indestructible strength, and such wisdom in the Word that the miserable “wise” people of this era will be unable to withstand the pressure.

12. This is my legacy and wish for you with all my heart, for I do not know any greater desires that I could have had for you than these, because none other exist.

Transcribed from the book: “Truth of the Church” page 9 (first printing in Moscow-2003); from the archives of the True Russian Orthodox Church for the years 2001 and 2002.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

What do you make of this?



AN APPEAL FROM HIS EMINENCE METROPOLITAN VITALY, FIRST HIERARCH OF THE RUSSIANORTHODOXCHURCH ABROAD


In 1920, the so-called “Great All-Russian Exodus” took place. The glorious Russian army under the leadership of Gen. Wrangel and, with it, 3 million refugees left Russia forever. Gen. Wrangel, expecting these events in advance, prepared over 160 vessels and, following the moleben, at which both those who were already aboard ship and those who remained ashore made a full prostration to each other and we embarked upon our journey. I was a small boy at the time, but within the depths of my soul I felt and realized that I was beholding my native land for the last time, until it vanished beyond the horizon. Somewhere in this vast mass of humanity was the future hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Antony (Krapovitsky). During the same year, Patriarch Tikhon, recognizing the critical situation in which Russia and the Orthodox Church found themselves, as well as the fact that he could be assassinated at any moment, issued Ukaz 362, which concerned the creation of a new synod outside of Russia. This was the beginning of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. In Russia there remained yet another part of the Russian Orthodox Church – the Catacomb Church. She became the hated foe of the Communist Party. The government tried, and still tries to this day, to destroy her, but, due to God’s mercy, is unable to do so. Another question which arose for Stalin and his comrades was what to do with all the Orthodox people who were left in the native land. The communists recognized that, try as they might to destroy the faith of the people, they could not succeed in doing so, and on the contrary, the immense number of believers kept increasing. And so, the party in its opinion, found a way out of this situation. It created the so-called Moscow Patriarchate, the members of which, from the very beginning, were and continue being to this day, party members and KGB-men. Throughout the entire 80-plus years of our existence we understood who we were dealing with and their party also was aware that they would not be able to move us from our resolve and steadfast path.

Time passed and carried off those of our hierarchs who were faithful to the ideals of the ROCA to the very grave. There came a time when I recognized that I was left all alone. I had the choice of writing the final chapter of the Church Abroad or to embark once again upon the road and again carry the true Orthodox Church with me to freedom. Our Church became small, but preserved her crystal-like purity. Now the diminished Church Abroad is experiencing a difficult and frightful page in her history. The complete collapse of the Synod of Met. Laurus is the result of the long-since begun fall of mankind, i.e. of the final apocalyptic times. The gates of hell have swung open and regiments of devils have cast themselves upon an already spiritually weakened humanity.

I would like to address all the faithful sons and daughters of the Church Abroad and remind them, yet again, of our glorious, marvelous and fairly recent past, and to describe how I view their future. I can calmly assert, with a clear conscience, that we have remained faithful to the ideology and principles of the Russian Orthodox Church and of that free part of her which was created by Patriarch Tikhon – The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Let them condemn us, but we know that we have not departed from our path and have not sold out to the foe. Cast your gaze about you and look truth and righteousness in the eye. Can your current arch pastors and pastors do the same? I think not. Just as the Orthodox Church of America, in its day, was captivated by the Moscow Patriarchate and went into enslavement to Moscow, so too now, the synod of Metropolitan Laurus is doing the same. There is still time to repent and to return to the right path. If your spiritual leaders are not aware of this, your duty, while it is not yet too late, is to point out to them the entire absurdity of their way of thinking. Do not allow several rotten apples to spoil the entire bunch.

As concerns you yourselves personally, know this: the doors of our churches are open wide for you. Here a certain moment has come to mind. It was in Berlin. During the service, two elderly men walked into the church. They kept gazing roundabout themselves, as though seeking someone. At that moment, the name of Metropolitan Anastasii was proclaimed. The elderly men began to smile and crossed themselves, understanding that they had found themselves in their own Church, specifically. And such a moment will come for you, as well, when they begin to commemorate Aleksii in your churches. Can it be that your heart will not flinch with pain? And it will be even worse for you if you will be able to make the sign of the cross in that moment. The head of the Moscow Patriarchate once chanced to remark: “While Vitaly lives, there can be no union!” Only in this alone was he correct. While I live, our Church Abroad will not be consumed by Moscow!

The Lord give me the strength to lead His Church along the right path, and I am relying on God’s mercy to extend my earthly life until such time as I might, once again, see our Church One and Indivisible.

Once more, I call all of you to repentance and mutual love.

Metropolitan Vitaly
29/12 July, 2004, - The holy Chief Apostles, Peter and Paul

[Olga]

Hello Rick

You write:

don't believe the answer this person gives - "The point is no longer valid". He means well but is not in Russia. I found a website link in another thread that I read before. It makes the reply "The point is no longer valid" invalid. It cancels out the first two replies to start with and probably more but I won't go any further. here is the link http://www.roacusa.org/news.html

The link is to a site set up by a schismatic Russian grouping, which repeats the same old polemical shibboleths about the MP, about the new calendar, about the canonicity or otherwise of the established, canonical local Orthodox churches, and other matters.

As Andreas has pointed out, the best proof of the true and sincere renaissance of the Orthodox faith in Russia can be found in Russia itself. The explosion of open and free worship, of churches and monasteries being built and restored, of the flourishing of iconography, and the printing of liturgical texts, patristic and catechetical writings is ample proof of this. Therefore, if I must be so frank, your comment about George Nekrasov's comments being invalid is, itself invalid.

George Nekrasov does not need to live in Russia for his article to be credible, particularly in this age of mass communication. To my knowledge, not a priest, but this matters not a scrap as to his credibility, any more than it does to any layman.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


What can this mean?



REASONS WHY THE RUSSIANORTHODOXCHURCH ABROAD SHOULD NOT UNITE WITH THE ILLEGAL MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

Over the last few months, a number of people have approached me to inquire as to why I was totally opposed to this impending unholy unity. Without delving definitively into apostolic canons and Church Statutes, I will site pronouncements over the past few years of authoritative figures, as well as indisputable facts about the MP …and let the reader decide. Consider the following:
Our own Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), himself a confessor for the faith, writes: “They say the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) has not changed anything in dogmas, in services or in the rites. No, we answer - the Patriarchate has destroyed the essence of the dogma of the Church of Christ, it has rejected her essential purpose – to serve for the renewal of the people and replaced it with what is unnatural for the Church, serving the godless goals of Communism. This apostasy is worse than all previous Arianisms, Nestorianisms, Iconoclasisms and others. This is not the personal sin of one or another hierarch, but rather the deep rooted sin of the Patriarchate which is confirmed and proclaimed by them before the whole world in what one might call “dogmatized apostasy.”

Following the “fall” of Russian communism in 1990, our Holy Synod issued the following statement in August 1990:
“In view of the continuing servile subjection of the Moscow Patriarchate to the atheistic regime, it’s trampling upon canonical and dogmatic bases of the Orthodox Church, and its refusal to submit to the Truth and to the desires and expectations of the faithful of the Church of Russia, we do not find it possible for us to recognize the appointment of the new head of the Moscow Patriarchate (current head Alexis II) as the conciliar will of the Church of Russia.” Can our Synod show us where the MP has submitted “to the Truth and to the desires and expectations of the faithful of the Church of Russia”?

How, after reading these lines could any of our clergymen of ROCOR refer to the MP as the “Mother Church” such as we have been hearing lately? She is the mother of no one but the sons of Baal. The Moscow Patriarchate’s tactics have not in any way changed despite the political changes in Russia. A few years ago, the MP showed its true colours during a classic situation in Georgia, where those who confessed and professed true Orthodoxy, by requesting the Patriarch to abandon his participation in the World Council of Churches and ecumenism, were being hounded out of their monasteries and churches by agents of the Patriarch – Catholics, dressed in clerical garb, shouting: “Even if the Patriarch tells you that you must be a Mohammedan, you must comply!”

This is not an invented fantasy but an established fact. On September 4th, 1997, the Los Angeles Times did a complete expose on its entrenched corruption, revealing the hierarchy has moneyed interests in oil, vodka and tobacco sales, (their Met. Cyril heads these commercial enterprises and has the nickname in Russia – “Nicotine Cyril”). They also discovered wholesale moral degeneracy within that Patriarchate. Can our Synod explain to us how the Moscow Patriarchate has shed themselves of these sins since that time?

A few years after the Synod’s statement of August 1990, transcribed at three paragraphs above, quite mysteriously, it was revealed by our Holy Synod that Patriarch Alexis repented for past actions of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1991, but unfortunately this was not widely publicized!

If this was a true repentance, why is it that in the year 2000 (9 years after the alleged repentance), in his recitation to the faithful, Bishop Lvtihi from our Synod had this to say: “Neither I nor ANY Archbishops of ROCA are preparing to join with the MP in its unrepentant state, or agree with her apostasy and lies.” Can our Synod tell us if and when the MP had truly repented in accordance with our Church laws because these statements contradict one another? Furthermore, our Holy Synod’s epistle in the same year states categorically that Sergius and his Moscow Patriarchate usurped their authority and that the current MP is the CONTINUATION of Sergianism.

Given the above facts, why doesn’t our Synod tell us how all its above condemnations have been resolved and the illegal, apostate MP accepted as a grace-filled Church? Also, can our Synod explain why, for over 70 years, our faithful were not permitted to partake with them of their mysteries, if there was “grace” within their Church? Surely we shunned them because there was, indeed, an absence of “grace” within their ranks.

Now, the only way to resolve this serious doubt is for our hierarchs to tell how God’s grace had returned to the MP, bearing in mind that grace is based on confession of faith and not on the worthiness of the individual. The MP, for all its years did not confess the Orthodox faith, but actively fought against it with the godless Soviet government. Consequently, it is quite understandable that when, in the past, our Met. Anthony referred to the MP Hierarchs as “government officials in cassocks”, and speaking of the absence of grace among them, he does have a point.

Can our current Holy Synod tell us how the following denunciations by our very revered Metropolitans have been overturned and on what basis? :

From the published letter of Metropolitan Philaret to Protopriest Victor Potapov, June 26/July 9, 1980: “I would also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can’t understand why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy of the Soviet Church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them, as if they already have grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from the hierarchy, and if it has betrayed the truth and deprived itself of grace, from where then obtains the clergy this grace? It is along these lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question. The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases to employ the principle of economia – condescension. The hierarch St. Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the Church canons in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy ‘in there orders’, without re-ordaining them, she acted according to this principle. And Metropolitan Anthony (Krapovitsky), elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form – successive ordination from Apostolic times – that the Roman Catholics do have, whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by uniting themselves to the Church from the plentitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the very moment of their joining. ‘The form is filled with content,’ said Vladyka Anthony. In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that, we of course cannot do. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.”

Our Synod has stated that because the clergy and hierarchs of the MP were ordained or consecrated according to all Church canons, they have grace. Does this mean that if any person, whether he is a practicing homosexual, mass murderer, atheist, idolater, Satanist or profligate, receives correct ordination, he automatically receives God’s grace?

Are we to recognize the sanctity of those atheists that became bishops for the sole purpose of destroying Christ’s Church and signing death warrants for countless true clergy and faithful? Furthermore, where are they today and why is it that NOT EVEN ONE of them has been revealed, let alone judged?

In August 1990, our Holy Synod stated: “We are compelled to remember that the path of the Moscow Patriarchate, which introduced this falsehood beginning with the policies of Metropolitan, later Patriarch Sergius in 1927, that were implemented to preserve the external organization of the Church, declared that the joys and sorrows of the regime, which was inimicable to the Church, were also the joys and sorrows of the Church he headed. Metropolitans Peter and Cyril, who did not agree with this blasphemous falsehood together with their countless followers, entered the ranks of martyrs and confessors, which adorn the Church of Russia.”

Sure this was stated during the soviet reign, but how did the MP cleanse itself of all these damning FACTS? And did Met. Sergius’s MP receive CANONICAL legitimacy when Saint Bishop Basil Keneshemsky (1875-1945) had this to say about Met. Sergius:

“I do not recognize Sergius as an Orthodox Christian.” In other words, how can a non-Orthodox Christian be the head of a grace-filled Church and how can this spiritual illegitimacy be made canonically correct? It’s like trying to return a fried potato chip to its original state in the ground! It’s impossible! Yet our current Synod is recognizing Sergius as a sufferer for Christ, a person that has saved the Russian Orthodox Church!! Surely our hierarchs are obliged to give us an explanation, even though these evil acts occurred many years ago, because our Church teaches us that all sins cannot be ignored because of their antiquity, but must be cleansed through repentance! Furthermore, the initial illegitimacy of the MP continues to this day as nothing has been done CANONICALLY to set this right.

Now let us examine the question of ECUMENISM – “the heresy of all heresies” that was TOTALLY condemned by our Holy Synod. The MP has been a FULL FLEDGED member of this satanic organization for many decades, and despite being asked to leave it on a number of occasions by our Synod, has arrogantly continued its activity with increased zeal and participation, as the following facts will show:

The MP is a significant part of the WCC’s (World Council of Churches’) leadership and unashamedly participates in its entire administrative and operational activities. As such, it is responsible for all the decisions made by the WCC, which run contrary to the moral and dogmatic teachings of the Orthodox Church. For example in 2003, the WCC formed a “Committee on Prayer”, which was charged to formulate the text and rite of an ecumenical prayer that can be expressed by all its members. Among the 10 committee members was a member of the MP, Fr. Andrei Eliseev, who collaborated with the Committee Vice-President, a Protestant woman priest. Yet, when Met. Cyril of the MP (its most senior and influential cleric, after the Patriarch), was asked as to whether they would heed ROCA’s plea (sic!) for them to cease their activity and to leave the satanic organization, he declared: “We intend to continue and perhaps even intensify it”!! It should be realized that membership in the WCC doesn’t give a member a choice-to-be-just-an-observer of its activities – it means actually becoming an integral, active part of the ecumenical fellowship! ROCA’s unification with the MP will mean that we will find ourselves (through the back door) in the spiritual brothel of “world Orthodoxy”!!!

In 1917, the Russia-wide Council headed by Saint Patriarch Tikhon, proclaimed anathema of the satanic Soviet regime and all those who collaborate with it. This has never been rescinded, so can our Synod tell us why it is now permissible to have liturgical relations with those who are still under this anathema?

Patriarch Alexis II has acknowledged that he fulfilled the requirements of satanic godless authority by writing denunciations of the true faithful – but did not repent this, justifying his damning actions by stating that had he not complied, he would have been exiled to a monastery. Who can say that these denunciations didn’t lead to arrests and executions of those denounced?

Would our hierarchs please explain when this anathema was rescinded from the MP and its Pat. Alexis? In order to suppress valid questions on unification by concerned faithful, some hierarchs have started to demand obedience to their directives, as mentioned in the New Testament – Heb. 13:17 : “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive…”, (provided they don’t deviate from the truth).

Recklessly blind obedience would have deprived the Orthodox Church of its greatest Saints and confessors, eg. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Mark of Ephesus, and all the hierarchs, clergy and laity who have been glorified as the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. After all, shouldn’t they have obeyed their hierarchs unequivocally? As history shows, thank God they didn’t, because their hierarchs deviated from the truth, and if “…they do not obey the truth…” [Rom. 2:8], “Obey God, rather than men” [Acts 5:29].

With all the above evidence damning the MP and its unrepentant hierarchs, how can anyone in pure conscience accept the impending unification? Would our shepherds please illuminate the minds of their flocks with facts and specifics, which will prove that after being “a Soviet creation” for many decades, the Moscow Patriarchate has now become the Mother Church of Russian Orthodoxy? The responsibility for the purity of the Faith and the preservation of the Church lies on the conscience of every Orthodox Christian.

Are you ready to join the Patriarchate? I am not. I WOULD RATHER BE DIVIDED IN TRUTH THAN UNITED IN FALSEHOOD.

Lowly and unworthy Seraphim.

[Andreas Moran]

With all due respect to Rick James York, I do find myself wondering at the purpose of presenting certain documents which pre-date the Act of canonical communion between MP and ROCOR. Such documents serve only to remind of the enmity that was formerly felt by some in ROCOR to MP and do not take account of the most recent research to which reference has been made. It seems to me that to recall wounding statements made by a few in the past countervails the efforts for goodwill and Christian brotherly love which have led to the present position as between MP and ROCOR.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

In the last several hours I spoke with an English speaking priest from Russia. He noted that no real changes occurred in the MP in Russia prior to the union.

He said that critics say that Jesus taught us to love our enemies. So, they conclude that we must not speak against anyone who tries to lead us astray in doctrine but, Christ said to love OUR personal enemies, not HIS.

In +, James

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


With all due respect to Rick James York, I do find myself wondering at the purpose of presenting certain documents which pre-date the Act of canonical communion between MP and ROCOR. Such documents serve only to remind of the enmity that was formerly felt by the hierarch of ROCOR to MP and do not take account of the most recent research to which reference has been made. It seems to me that to recall wounding statements made by a few in the past countervails the efforts for goodwill and brotherly love which have led to the present position as between MP and ROCOR.

2 Thessalonians 2

The Great Apostasy

1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Stand Fast

13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.

[Olga]

He said that critics say that Jesus taught us to love our enemies. So, they conclude that we must not speak against anyone who tries to lead us astray in doctrine but, Christ said to love OUR personal enemies, not HIS.

Rick

Could you please provide examples of doctrine taught by the MP church, which is contrary to the mind and teachings of the Orthodox Church as a whole?

[Andreas Moran]

Rick James York Quotation:
Originally Posted by Andreas Moran
With all due respect to Rick James York, I do find myself wondering at the purpose of presenting certain documents which pre-date the Act of canonical communion between MP and ROCOR. Such documents serve only to remind of the enmity that was formerly felt by the hierarch of ROCOR to MP and do not take account of the most recent research to which reference has been made. It seems to me that to recall wounding statements made by a few in the past countervails the efforts for goodwill and brotherly love which have led to the present position as between MP and ROCOR.

2 Thes. 2.

How dare you! To equate the Russian Orthodox Church (MP) with Satan and Wickedness is a blasphemous outrage and I insist you retract this.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

If I might make a few notes on this thread:

Firstly, it should be rather evident to all that the recent focus of the thread in particular is entirely outside the scope of this forum. Our hope is always that members will in their maturity 'self-moderate' when things start so obviously go beyond the scope of the forum, and either bring discussions into some relevance to our purposes, or simply cease them; but there are times, like this, when it needs to be stated by one of the moderators. This forum is for the discussion of Orthodoxy through her patristic and monastic heritage - i.e. principally patristic studies and explorations. Not only do conversations on modern ecclesiastical politics and inter-church relations not fall into this scope except by special circumstance, they are in fact expressly ruled out of it by our terms of use.

Secondly, even if this were the place to discuss Church relations (which it is not), the re-hashing and re-posting of well known sentiments from before the act of reunion of the Church was agreed and signed, do not serve useful purpose. They continue to be circulated by those who continue to refuse to accept the Church's union; but to the openness of genuine discussion, they are old news, and have been read and considered in detail long ago. A fruitful means of gaining understanding is to examine how the Church responded to such comments, not simply to keep repeating them. The ultimate response was signed on 17th May 2007. There are many who still have grave concerns, deep enough that it has hitherto hindered a personal reconciliation. May understanding and peace eventually prevail in all corners, in God's time.

But in any case, this discussion is not appropriate here. Let us turn ourselves back to discussions that are in our remit.

XB, Dcn Matthew
Monachos.net