Nektarios recently posted a well thought out summation of recent discussions that have been going on here at the cafe, and, if I may, I'd here like to post something of a summation of the various positions within ROCOR for consideration and criticism. While it would perhaps make the dinstinctions more vivid (or easy to remember), I will avoid using names in the summation. The main reason for this is that I don't want to "box anyone in" (or have anyone feel like they are being boxed in. And indeed, many things in life are often neither black nor white, but somewhere in between, and so most people probably fall, to some extent, between the categories.
Having made this note, though, I do think it would be helpful to discuss the various positions in ROCOR, and which are tenable (according to her history), and which are not (and to what extent they are tenable--ie. are some on the fringe?). I think a lot of the errors and division that has happened in the past few decades has happened because people don't seem to realise that there are more than one tenable ecclesiological position within ROCOR. People find out about a concelebration with the Serbs, or read something that sounds like we are going to unite with the MP very soon, and they run for cover, completely leaving the Church Abroad.
Well, we've always had concelebrations with the Serbs (and "worse" has happened, forty and fifty years ago, as perhaps will be shown later in the thread), and we've always spoken of Christians within the MP--normally monks, layman, and priests--with some sympathy. On the other hand, there have been voices that steadfastly stood against any contact with world Orthodoxy, and there have also been those who spoke of the MP in a very harsh. But perhaps we can discuss this further as the thread progresses (and I have faith that you and I, my brothers and sisters, will keep this civil 
).
One last note before I list (in my understanding) the positions: none of the terms I use are used in a pejorative manner. I use both the word "zealot" and "unionist" here, but neither do I use in a derogatory way. I believe there have been sincere people in the past, and there are such people in the present, affirming all of these positions. [1]
1) Zealot - Those in this group believe that the MP is without grace, that the only true Christians in Russia for the past couple-few generations were in the Catacomb Church. Some in this group believe that the Russian Church cannot be healed, though most only believe that it will not be healed anytime soon. Those in this group tend to react very negatively to any language that speaks positively of the MP or world Orthodoxy as this is seen as a corruption of the Church because of influence of "the west" or "ecumenism". Concelebrations, and even meetings, with the Serbs and those of the Jerusalem Patriarchate should be avoided, and the Cyprianites and other old calendarists (that ROCOR is in communion with) should be watched with extreme caution.
2) Rigorist - Those in this group believe that it is impossible to say whether the MP has grace, or that it is better not to speak of such things at all (ie. not to even speculate on the matter). Most in this group look foward to a united Russia, but are extremely skeptical, and doubt it will happen within their lifetime. All that the MP and other Churches (or perhaps they would call them "psuedo-Churches") do is to be looked upon with a wary eye, since the hierarchy is almost totally corrupted. A mostly untalked about communion with Serbia should continue, as should the communion with the various old-calendarists who have "walled themselves off". It is thought that we may have to eventually cut ties with one or all of these groups, however.
3) Moderate - Those in this group believe that there is grace in some of the churches of the MP, though also affirm that there was certainly grace in the catacomb Church. The oft-talked-about all-Russian council is eagerly looked forward to, though when the time for it comes those in this group will become increasingly vigilant and watchful, so that the truth and reality is not lost in anticipation of a glorious union. The MP and world Orthodoxy are looked upon with a wary eye, but when they do something good they are commended for it, and when they suffer, those in this group feel their suffering. Communion with the Serbs, Jerusalem, the Cyprianites, et al., should be strengthened if circumstances allow, and positive signs are seen in these groups. Met. Cyprian's ecclesiological discourse regarding the various Greek factions reminds us that we too (the Russians) are not by ourselves, but are only seperated for a time until we reunite in the future.
4) Unionists - Those in this group believe not only that there is grace in the MP, but that the MP has been taking major steps towards repairing the damage done. There are still mistakes that are made, and there are still mistakes in the past which need to be admitted to, but overall those in this group push for talks and discussion in preperation for union (ie. for an all-Russian council where unity could come about). Serbia and the other groups we are in communion with are not only our friends, but they should even be sought out to help us in our attempt to bring the Russian Church together again. Those in this group are wary of much of what they see in some of the more liberal world Orthodox jurisdictions/Churches, but think that all the more reason to strive for unity in the Russian Church.
Corrections on any of these are welcomed, of course! If necessary, I can (I'm almost positive) give a historical example, quote from a contemporary saint, or some other such evidence, in support of everything I said about each group. Or put more simply, those in the groups could provide evidence for their holding to the beliefs that they do. There are other positions held to within ROCOR, but these are not, in my estimation, not tenable Orthodox positions. Those to the right of the Zealots, the sectarions, and those to the left of the unionists, the ecumenists, are not acceptable positions in the Church so far as I understand.
This whole thing was not posted so we can all "jump in our boxes" and so continue the arguing with convenient labels on us. As I said before, one of the main reasons I posted this was to remind us (and to remind myself!) that there are small differences in ecclesiology within ROCOR, and we must not be smug about the whole situation, but must discuss thing openly and in a civil manner. Some will oppose such a division into "camps," and indeed if people start using these labels to attack each other I too would oppose such a division.
Again, the point of the listing of divisions was not so that we could attack (or jab) one another, but so that we can proceed in discussing the issues in a more fruitful way. I think that we must stop looking at the Church as though all of her hierarchs, councils, and priests have taught the same thing: for surely they did not. We need to realise that sometimes things are muddy: that sometimes a council said one thing; while a bishop had a different, privately held, position; while at another place a priest said something totally opposite. If we don't realise this, we will never make any progress, we will never get to the real issue: What should the position of the Church today be? What is the most Orthodox and acceptable position to affirm right here, right now?.
I believe that our ROCOR hierarchs knew all of this that I am saying (if I speak truthfully in this post), before I (and many members of this forum) were even born. Our bishops grew up experiencing and seeing first hand the various factions and positions, and being led by the holy spirit, know full well which is the most sensible. So why have I posted this if I think my hierarchs already know all of this? For one, so that we can go past arguing and start to understand, so that when they make the decisions they make we will understand (not that we should rebel if we don't understand!)
And secondly, though the bishop know, many of the monks, laity, and priests get caught up in the rhetoric and sometimes lose track of where reality is (I speak of all sides, not simply those who I disagree with). Some leave ROCOR altogether and join another sect, Church, or schismatic group; some become frustrated and leave the Church altogether. This second reason is especially fearful to me, for we who discuss these issues will certainly have to answer for what we have said when we appear before the holy, just Judge. How fearful will it be for us if the only fruits that are produced by all this online talk are rotten fruit?
Something else that needs to be discussed and doesn't seem to be getting discussed--from what I've seen anyway--is what our position should be today. We can quote Saint Justin, and Fr. Seraphim, and St. John of San Francisco, and all sorts of hierarchs and priests, and documents, and historical examples: but we must admit that things are changing now. Certainly we must look to our fathers--both past and present--for guidance, but we cannot blindly quote every person who seems to agree with our position, assuming that they would say or do the same things today.
I submit this all for your correction.
Justin
[1] Just for further clarification, when I speak of a "zealot," I am speaking of someone extremely zealous who takes a hard, firm stance a good distance away from the "moderate position". Theodore the Studite, or Mark of Ephesus, would be examples of this position: saints who took drastic steps to cut off what they saw as immense wrongs. On the other side, when I speak of "unionists," I of course don't mean participants in the ecumenical movement (WCC, etc.), but rather those who strive for unity in a way that is completely opposite the zealots. Unionists would perhaps take Saints such as Basil the Great as their example: saints who bent over backwards for a long while in an attempt to keep peace in the Church and set things right in the Church.
