Being Recieved into Orthodoxy

[John the Russian]

Thanks for your reply Nick.
But I beleive ROCIE also broke away because ROCOR was becomming heretical (as you can read on its site regarding the Cyprianites)as well as for the treasonous way they carried out the sobor and eliminated Met Vitaly. So yes part may have been political. You are right also that a communist governmet can in no way create a legitimate bishop, so any appointments made by them and by the so called bishops they appointed are null and void. Therefore there arre no bishops in the MP it is merely a governmet agency that pretends to serve God while making millions in vodka and cigarette sales.

[Seraphim Reeves]

John,

But I beleive ROCIE also broke away because ROCOR was becomming heretical (as you can read on its site regarding the Cyprianites)as well as for the treasonous way they carried out the sobor and eliminated Met Vitaly.

While I agree with ROCiE's positions (as far as I can tell, so do those Bishops of ROAC who have publically spoken on this subject, such as Vladyka Gregory), it is how the ROCiE came into existance that was the problem.

The ROCiE makes the unambiguous claim of being the "continuing ROCOR" - they are the actual ROCOR as far as they're concerned. This of itself is not offensive. The problem however is that their formation, under Metropolitan Vitaly is not lawful.

While it is true that Metropolitan Vitaly was horribly mistreated by those within ROCOR (and basically forced into retirement), the truth is he ultimatly gave his signature of resignation willingly. However, it appears later on, after being badgered into retirement, he decided to "revoke" his signature. Well, this is not how things are done! You cannot agree to something (even if you did not really want to, deep down) and then "take it back" willy nilly. The sad truth is, Metropolitan Vitaly surrendered his position in the ROCOR; he cannot simply just take it back "because he says so."

The other, perhaps more basic problem, is that initial crime he now accuses the ROCOR of having committed (the entering of communion with the Cyprianites, something the ROCiE, thankfully, disavows) is something he himself oversaw. While it seems from what we do know of this situation that his feelings on this at the time were probably mixed, the sad fact is it is he who oversaw this arrangement (as first heirarch of the ROCOR), and ultimatly it was he personally who consumated this unfortunate decision (by concelebrating with the Cyprianites.) It was precisely this event, aggrivated by other unfortunate activities by some of ROCOR's heirarchs in their meddling with affairs in Russia itself, which led to the seperation of the ROAC from ROCOR.

Now, if Metropolitan Vitaly has come to have a change of heart regarding the Cyprianites and their ecclessiological positions, this is great in and of itself. The same is true of those from ROCOR who now are part of the ROCiE. However, such a position is a tacit admission that Metropolitan Valentin, and the ROAC were correct for breaking with Vitaly and the rest of the ROCOR when they did!

Given this, there should be a qualitative difference between the ROAC's leadership and that of the ROCiE. The difference? The ROAC, after seeing what ROCOR was doing, refused to participate in this defection, and broke ties with the offenders (which included Metropolitan Vitaly himself.) The ROCiE otoh, is led and composed of those who were either directly responsible for this offence (Vitaly), or who at least nominally went along with it for some time, before finally having their consciences get the better of them.

IOW, if the ROCiE genuinely believes as they do, the only consistent, conscientious thing they could have done, is approach the heirarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROAC) with a spirit of repentence, admit they did wrong in various ways, and be reconciled. I can guarantee, had this been done, they would have been eagerly embraced (indeed, such a possibility still remains open for them, should they come around and become of a mind to accept this).

Instead, what we now have is yet another division amongst those claiming to be the legitimate heirs to the Russian Orthodox patrimony - and it is one, in my honest opinion, which only exists because the ROCiE is not yet prepared to admit it's own culpability in what became of the ROCOR. Such will require great humility (and I am guilty of lacking this in the extreme; I too am stubborn, and find it hard to be submissive to Godly authority). I do not think all hope is lost. I really do hope that this will happen soon, one way or another. I think the seperate existance of the ROCiE (let alone on such illegitimate grounds) from the ROAC poses a great obstical to the visibility of the genuine "continuing" Russian Orthodox Church's clear witness to the faith, in the face of incredible perversity.

Seraphim

[John the Russian]

Seraphim, thank you.
I think you arre quite right, those in ROCIE, myself included, were either asleep (like me not paying attention to what was happening in our church at the time) or were waiting to see if ROCOR would turn away from its mistake. But the pont is we didi finally take action to correct the wrongs of the past by leaving a church that was falling farther from the truth and walling ourselves off. ]
The fact that Met Vitaly took back his resignation is as he himself stated "An Extraordinary" event. Not one tha has been done before. He saw all too late what his resignation would bring and when his flock cried out for him to do something, pleading for him to save the church, he didi the only thing he could have at that time.

ROAC and ROCIE probably have more in common than any 2 other non heretical/cannonical=(apostolic succession) jurisdictions. I don't think the possibility of the 2 comming together and forming one larger church is all that far fetched. In I fact I think many people from both groups would agree to it since there is really nothing that separates us. I pray that the holy spirit will guide us all to do the right thing.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Although I would not necessarily disagree with this Seraphim, I am also not prepared to completely agree either.

Clearly Met. Vitaly was instrumental, even if only by silence, in the Cyprianite union. But it is also clear he had important misgivings which you seem to agree.

If by circumstance, he found himself swept up in a general opinion among his fellow bishops that a union with Cyprian should take place, and out of his own weakness failed to act decisively, well that is one thing. But as you say, his coming to realize and admit his error, is a tremendous blessing.

The fault you point out seems to lay with his failure to submit himself to the ROAC. But with all of the misinformation, unsubstantiated rumor, and even completely baseless accusations floating around (see the thread about HTM), it can’t be considered such an unfathomable idea that Met. Vitaly may not even trust the Orthodoxy of the ROAC.

The other fault you mentioned is his retirement. I am very reluctant to apply legalistic rules which say he cannot recind this under extreme duress. Does a retired bishop cease to be endowed with the Grace and charismas he received at ordination simply by putting his signature on a piece of paper, which basically says: I don't plan to exercise my role anymore? In fact, if I am not mistaken, there are other people some in the ROAC are striving for communion with who came out of retirment.

There are certainly times when each of us are called to be decisive with regards to certain groups and issues, these groups, who are truly schismatic and truly heretical must be pointed out so people are not let astray. But equally important, there are also times when the circumstances are not so clear as much as we rationalists would like, and a measure of compassion is far more useful than a constant magnification of another’s perceived mistakes. You may find like I have that in many cases, there are no real doctrinal differences that justify a number of schisms among “Old Calendar” groups today. In many cases, there are Bishops with bruised egos, personality conflicts, hidden agendas, and a great degree of self-righteousness.

St. John Chrysostom says in his 11th Homily on the Ephesians: “Even if we have done innumerable good works, if we slice up the fullness of the Church we shall pay a severe penalty as if we had cut God’s body in two. While the latter at least occurred for the benefit of the world [i.e. the Passion on the Cross], the former . . . inflicts a great deal of damage.”

These Bishops who have contributed their share of what St. John describes need to hasten themselves to repentance. And I for one will strive to not suffer “a severe penalty” for dividing or contributing to existing divisions of Christ’s body, or even to his lost sheep.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, these issues are so much "closer to home" and really to important not to discuss.

[PFC Nektarios]

In all of the recent meetings of the ROCOR and the MP, they
said that the MP must renounce Eumenical Activities, and
to renounce sergianism. Thats a few of there requirments
before ROCOR is reunited with the Mother Church.

I believe this to be a correct action. Like I said
most of the Schisms from ROCOR are because of
meer political reasons, for all the groups listed.

In Christ
OrthodoxLearner

[PFC Nektarios]

THE SOVIET UNION HAS FELL!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT! Seriously its starting to become really ridiculous. If you could hear yourselves from my point of view. :ohvey:

In Christ
OrthodoxLearner

[Joe Zollars]

Say for instance I owned a large farm and one day determined to set up my own country with this farm and neighboring farms. Were I to decide while chief ruler of this country to create a set of postage stamps and currency, as I would most undoptably do. Now say for instance the country goes bankrupt through out of control defense spending. The country is now dissolved. Does that mean that the postage stamps and currency which I had commissioned are valid American Currency? of course not.

Neither is the "church" commissioned by Stalin a valid church simply because the soviet union has fallen. If this were the case, than the New Martyrs meant nothing.

Nicholas Zollars