ROCOR won't become either more or less traditional, because they will, essentially and in all the ways relevant to this particular point, cease to exist. Perhaps ROCOR and her bishops would be allowed to remain an "American Diocese" or some such thing, but regardless of what happens, if they form a union, then they would be part of (what they would call) the one Russian Church. From their perspective, there would be no ROCOR, and there would be no MP. There'd be the Russian Church, and the schismatics. ROCOR and other traditionalists are already caricatured and attacked (sometimes rightly critiqued, though most times wrongly and inaccurately attacked): does anyone believe that the accuracy and tone of the polemical literature and "news reports" and "open letters" (and so forth) will improve once the ROCOR and MP form a union? Does anyone believe that the traditionalist cause will be stronger and healthier for the union?
A Dumb Question
Moderator: Mark Templet
-
Gregory2
the antiochians do recognize the OCA as autocephalous. Go to the recent issue of "Again" magazine published by an agency of that Archdiocese (you can read it on www.antiochian.org if you have adobe acrobat reader) -- the OCA is listed as one of the 15 autocephalous Orthodox churches.
Remember the statement of St John Maximovitch of Shanghai & San Francisco the Wonderworker: "There's no such thing as 'separate jurisdictions' - we all belong to Christ's jurisdiction!" I think it would behoove us all to remember this.
-
mwoerl
antiochians etc etc etc., mp and rocor; "accuracy"
the antiochians may very well say "we recognize the autocephaly of the oca;" however, "recognition" of the autocephaly means that a) the oca is the american church, with north america being its "canonical" territory, and b) no other orthodox church should have diocese, parishes, etc., on that "canonical" territory (with the exception, of course, of "representation" churches and the like).
when the antiochians extended this "recognition" of the oca's autocephaly, if they indeed "recognized" it in the conventional sense, the antiochian archdiocese would have ceased to exist, and its dioceses and parishes would have become part of the oca. the "recognition" spoken of in "Again" magazine sounds like a p.r. announcement, which , as usual, means they want to be thought well of for "recognizing" the autocephaly, but they aren't going to actually DO anything about that "recognition." the push for "autonomy" or "self-rule" or whatever it is that the antiochian archdiocese is pushing for seems to underscore my interpretation. "yeh, they are autocephalous alright, but WE aint goin to join up."
perhaps saint john of shanghai and san francisco was speaking of the ideal rather than the reality.
what i think is the whole idea with rocor and the mp "re-uniting"-from what i have heard on both sides to some extent-is that rocor would remain autonomous, an exarchate of the russian church, responsible for everything "outside of russia," basically in its current form, with its hierarchy, dioceses, and institutions intact. so, rocor would not simply "cease to exist." and again, rocor would not become "less traditional," but go on , i believe, much as it has been.
the "accuracy" and "tone" of polemical materials, "open letters," etc., i think, will definitely NOT improve, but probably become more bizarre than they are already. the quality of many things i have seen is really bad. when appeals to abandon rocor and/or the mp hinge on things such as "metropolitan valentin is the guy to join because a prosecutor in russia told him charges would be dropped if he joined the mp," and continued harping on "parasynagogues of satan" and the like-i think these "polemicists" and "open-letter" writers are simply chasing more people away than they will ever hope to attract.
for reasons beyond my understanding, it seems bizarreness goes with the territory! also for reasons beyond my understanding, it seems that halfway decent writing and claims that can be substantiated, or are not ridiculous, are things that these "polemicists" and "open letter" writers avoid like the plague. in the long run, i think the attractions of a large and unified church (if thats where it all goes) will be more desirable to the majority than the degeneration to bizarro bizarro land.
mwoerl
-
mwoerl
dont dwell on that!
bogoliubtsy wrote:
"Well I guess Valentine was a "heretic" during that time as well."
now, now! dont you realize we were told not to "dwell" on that part of his life! for shame!
mwoerl
stgregorythetheologian wrote:the antiochians do recognize the OCA as autocephalous. Go to the recent issue of "Again" magazine published by an agency of that Archdiocese (you can read it on www.antiochian.org if you have adobe acrobat reader) -- the OCA is listed as one of the 15 autocephalous Orthodox churches.
Remember the statement of St John Maximovitch of Shanghai & San Francisco the Wonderworker: "There's no such thing as 'separate jurisdictions' - we all belong to Christ's jurisdiction!" I think it would behoove us all to remember this.
I think that same issue also has an article about the Antiochian's new status of 'self-ruling'.
-
mwoerl
OCA's autocephaly
again, listing the oca as one of the 15 autocephalous churches, and actually meaningfully recognizing that autocpehaly are two entirely different things, indeed. if the antiochians truly 'recognized' the oca's autocpehaly, their north american archdiocese would cease to exist, and be incorporated into the oca.
mwoerl