ROCOR's side to the ROAC story

rebecca · Post by **rebecca** » Thu 11 December 2003 3:58 pm

I'm curious to know what ROCOR's view is on the ROAC and why the two groups aren't in communion. Does anyone have a link?

Dcn. John · Post by **Dcn. John** » Fri 12 December 2003 8:33 am

I'm curious to know what ROCOR's view is on the ROAC and why the two groups aren't in communion. Does anyone have a link?

Q - "In Russia, besides the Moscow Patriarchate, there is also another "alternative" Church - the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church headed by Metropolitan Valentine (Rusantsev), with its center in Suzdal. What is the attitude of the Russian Church Abroad to this hierarch?"

A - "The answer to that is quite unambiguous: he was defrocked for serious misdeeds, and therefore cannot be either a bishop, or a priest. For us, he is nothing more than a monk."

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/eng ... lmark.html

Seraphim Reeves · Post by **Seraphim Reeves** » Fri 12 December 2003 3:37 pm

A - "The answer to that is quite unambiguous: he was defrocked for serious misdeeds, and therefore cannot be either a bishop, or a priest. For us, he is nothing more than a monk."

I don't know whether I find this more laughable, or pathetic - this coming from the same person who is content to recognize the validity of the MP as "part of the Russian Orthodox Church" and entertain no questions about the "validity" of it's heirarchy. Ecumenists, if nothing else, are fratercidal.

Seraphim

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Fri 12 December 2003 3:59 pm

seraphim reeves wrote:
A - "The answer to that is quite unambiguous: he was defrocked for serious misdeeds, and therefore cannot be either a bishop, or a priest. For us, he is nothing more than a monk."

I don't know whether I find this more laughable, or pathetic - this coming from the same person who is content to recognize the validity of the MP as "part of the Russian Orthodox Church" and entertain no questions about the "validity" of it's heirarchy. Ecumenists, if nothing else, are fratercidal.

Seraphim

I know I've posted these excerpts on here a number of times...but they just don't seem to sink in. The Moscow Patriarchate, whether some like it or not, has always been considered a part of the Russian Church.

ROCOR Sobor of 1927:

The part of the All-Russian Church located abroad must cease all administrative relations with the church administra-tion in Moscow…until restoration of normal relations with Russia and until the liberation of our Church from persecutions by the godless Soviet authorities…The part of the Russian Church that finds itself abroad considers itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the Great Russian Church. It does not separate itself from its Mother Church and does not consider itself autocephalous.

They must cease all administrative relations with Moscow- not the Catacomb Church, but Moscow. Then, a sentence later, the statement says that ROCOR does not seperate itself from the "Mother Church", speaking, of course, still about the official Moscow hierarchy. Some have argued that the term "Mother Church" here is in reference to the Catacomb Church. How can it be? The theme of the paragraph is the administration in Moscow.

At the 1946 Sobor, Met. Anastassy says:

The bishops, the clergy and the laymen, subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Synod of Bishops Abroad, never broke canonical, prayer, or spiritual unity with their Mother Church.

Again, Met. Anastassy from the 1956 Sobor:

The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an inseparable part of the Local (Pomestnoy) Orthodox Church, temporarily self-governing until the fall in Russia of the godless authorities, in compliance with the Decision of Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Highest Church Council of the Church in Russia of 7 /20 November 1920, #362

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Fri 12 December 2003 4:10 pm

And at the same time Met. Anastasy (or was is it Anthony?) forbade any contact with the Soviet Church. I still don't think the term 'Mother Church' refers to the MP.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Fri 12 December 2003 4:33 pm

Daniel wrote:
And at the same time Met. Anastasy (or was is it Anthony?) forbade any contact with the Soviet Church. I still don't think the term 'Mother Church' refers to the MP.

Yeah, forbade contact until the time when the godless regime would fall. Who then, does the term "Mother Church" refer to? I suppose one is free to thinkwhatever one wishes. The truth though, may be far removed from the person's thought. My guess is that if you were to ask an older Russian clergyman of ROCOR whether or not ROCOR has always considered the MP to be part of the Russian Church, you'd wind up hearing "Yes" quite a few times.

If you, the ROAC synod, and the majority of the posters and perhaps moderators on this forum would like to believe that over 160 million Russian Orthodox Christians are currently not receiving the Grace of the sacraments, be my guest. If you would like to re-interpret the statutes of the Russian Church Abroad to fit into some new extremist mold, that's fine... I'd suggest though that you understand the real weight of these statements, their implications, and whether or not some of you are ready to be accountable before God for some of your words.

Lounger · Post by **Lounger** » Fri 12 December 2003 4:54 pm

Archbishop Antony wrote:
According to many canonical rules, all of the so-called bishops, archbishops and metropolitans of the Moscow Patriarchate, being KGB agents, are apostates from Christ. The 62nd Apostolic Canon deprives them of these titles, and if they repent, it calls for them to be accepted as laymen and not to be ordained. Similar orders are found in numerous (24) canonical rules. From this, we see that the Divine Canons do not admit the Divine Gifts to apostates - KGB agents.