Ecclesiological Dissonance

[Noah]

Why the pessimistic tone? Even in his latest interview Metropolitan Laurus stated again that ecumenism was the heresy of heresies and no communion can be attained under its error. Is it not true that relations with the MP and the Roman Catholics have been steadily deteriorating over the past few years? Isnt it also true that since the fall of communism the church in Russia under the MP has been steadily growing more conservative/traditional rather than more liberal/anti-traditional (like the SCOBA churches)? It would seem to me (although I may be wrong, and I pray constantly that I am not) that this view of being forced into communion with ecumenists by a synod who will sell out their ecclesiology is unfounded. It has already been pointed out and is probably common knowledge that ROCOR is a temporary church and that talks with Russia need to commence at some time. The atheists no longer control the church, communism has fallen. Perhaps it is still not time to begin the reunification talks, but I have not the conscience to judge the ROCOR heirarchs on their decisions in this matter. Anyway, wouldnt the prudent judgement at this time be to take Metropolitan Laurus at his word, since he has not violated it yet? Couldnt it be that instead of the ROCOR faithful being forced into disastrous communion with ecumenists that the MP will continue its healing from almost a century of atheist control by at last giving up on the heresy of ecumenism, since it has caused her nothing but grief, expecially with the Uniates/Roman Catholics? I hope my questions are not too naive or falsely optimistic. But I accept any corrections that may be offered.

Noah

[Justin Kissel]

Noah,

No, I don't think they are naive at all. I think they're very good, and I would indeed like to give his Grace, Met. Laurus, the benefit of the doubt. The problem I have is that those things which I consider issues, none of my bishops seem to consider issues. The Bishops and Priests seem to be focused on sergianism, MP participation in the WCC, etc. That's great! I'm fully willing to trust my bishops when it comes to those issues.

But when I mention that if a union were to happen, we'd be in communion with Antioch, no one seems to consider it an issue. That's the problem for me: it's not that I don't trust my bishops regarding the issues they are dealing with, it's that I can't trust them to deal with issues which they don't even consider issues to be dealt with. To use an analogy, I wouldn't trust my mechanic to fix my brakes if he thought my brakes were fine and didn't need to be fixed. If only my bishops would recognize the issues that bother me, then I could trust that they would properly deal with them

Perhaps it is arrogant and presumptuous of me to speak in this way. What right do I have to say these things? Someone might ask whether they are really important issues, considering that so many pious and learned bishops don't consider them issues to be discussed, but only sinful laymen like me seem to worry about them? I guess the answer is that I cannot ignore my conscience, or the way I feel within my soul that I must go; the salvation of my family depends on my making the correct decision, and even indecision can lead to bad results. I have tried to constantly keep in my St. Gregory the Theologian's words, "well thought out caution is better than inconsiderate haste" (paraphrase). That is why I talked with people (including priests, and those I look to for spiritual advice) about these issues. Eventually, though, I must go past investigation. We all must.

I've heard that many changes are taking place within Russia, and this I am happy about. Even if only 1% of it were true, that's still an improvement! I would be happy if I could make a 1% improvement on a regular basis. The issue for me is not piety or orthodoxy regarding most issues. The issue is not the MP being in the WCC or the Patriarch being a former KGB agent. The issues for me are the ones which my bishops don't consider issues. A priest I respect answered one of my issues in this way: we in ROCOR are already in indirect communion with Antioch (via Serbia), so it will be no big deal to be in full direct communion. But these types of answers, so far from setting my mind at ease (which they are meant to do), only make me worry more, because I realise that there is perhaps a larger chasm between my Church and I than I realised.

I'm sorry if I've offended you, Noah. I certainly offend a lot of people with rash comments and stupid, immature posts. I had hoped the this thread would not be a showcase for such offensiveness though. I only tried to sincerely articulate my thoughts and feelings, and understanding of history.

[Noah]

I think that those concerns you raised are known to the clergy/heirarchy. The last time I was at Jordanville and spoke to one of the priests there, HE voiced precisely the same concern about who we would end up in communion with if reunification were to take place. And unless the heirarchs claimed Metropolitan Cyprian's ecclesiology as their own without having read or understood it, then I find it almost impossible to believe that the heirarchs would not have these issues in mind as well, and under the Cyprian ecclesiology, the hierarchs cannot be in communion with World Orthodoxy without condemning itself. So naturally if the hierarchs (with the approval of the All-Russian Sobor) decide to unite with the MP without the MP breaking its communion with world orthodoxy, then indeed I am in total agreement with you, as we would have violated the ecclesiology that drew me out of the OCA and into the ROCOR, and if that were to happen, then outside of moving to Cal. to go to a Cyprian church, I wouldnt know where to go. So, no offense was taken!

[Justin Kissel]

padraigsmith,

Greetings! Welcome to the forum.

We were in communion with them for 5 years from 1971-1976, and during that time it became clear to us that ROCOR, dispite what we were told by their representatives that we had contact with, did not in any way share our confession of Faith concerning the new calendarists and ecumenists.

I know this question I'm about to ask will sound confrontational, but I do not mean it to be. That question is, during the late 1970's (and possibly up till about 1984), what was the Matthewite position regarding ROCOR? Specifically, were ROCOR considered schismatics since they wouldn't say that the new calendarists were schismatics (and, in fact, had parishes using the new calendar [by economia] under them)?

We are not extreem in any way. We are simply Orthodox. If you met or even talked with any so called Matthewite here in America you would change your opinion of us.

Well, my opinion was formed partly from the matthewite websites and discussion list postings that I've seen. I'm perfectly ready to admit that I got things totally wrong, though. Perhaps interactionss with you will be a start

Noah,

I hope you are correct in saying that the issues which concern me are known to our bishops. One of the problems is that, according to a letter sent to ROCOR by Met. Cyprian himself, ROCOR is already in communion with world Orthodoxy, via it's relationship with Serbia. We seem to be in agreement for the most part, though perhaps I am just more cautious (or perhaps pessimistic). I'm probably in a similar situation to you, having left the Antiochian Church and becoming ROCOR, and now waiting to see what happens. I think my caution will make me move sooner rather than later, though, having already talked things over to some extent with those I look to for spiritual guidance. For what it's worth, there might be a GOC (Hellenic Traditionalist) Church under Archbp. Chrysostomos II (Kiousis) closer to you than Cali. The forum member OrthodoxyOrDeath would know more about that, though he won't be back for another week (or perhaps longer). I'm not recommending that you leave ROCOR, I just think it's good to explore the alternatives in case you ever do leave.

[Noah]

Perhaps there is an intentional lack of total ecclesiological clarity on the part of ROCOR? True, the Serbian connection does violate any of the ecclesiologies of resistance. Perhaps someone can shed some light as to why ROCOR maintains such ties with the Serbs. And perhaps also this very fact overturns our fears that communion with the MP (under certain conditions) will necessarily place us in direct communion with the rest of the "World Orthodox" churches. If being in communion with the Patriarchate of Serbia (and Jerusalem, I believe - but I have some questions to ask about that too, any input would be appreciated) doesnt place the ROCOR in direct communion with World Orthodoxy, why should we assume that communion with the MP would?

But again, even the communion that we have now violates at least the Cyprianite ecclesiology. But even this fact has not led Cyprian's synod to break ties with ROCOR, even if it HAS caused a certain nervouseness. Perhaps Metropolitan Cyprian's patience can be linked to his own resistance to the temptation of "super-correctness". One need only visit the Matthewite website to see the dangers in such a view. Of course this does not mean that the rest of us discard the Matthewites as graceless cult-Orthodox. These days are frightening in the discord and betrayals in Orthodoxy, and I for one can totally understand a synod's vigilance getting out of control, as much as I can understand a synod's confidence in their errors of modernism and ecumenism because all of World Orthodoxy is with them. It goes without saying also that I dont agree with either.

I agree that it is always wise to know what your options are in cases of heresy in your synod, but for me (and this is highly debated, I know) the ONLY other choice outside of ROCOR is a Cyprianite church (my reasons for which are the distinguishing characteristics of the Cyrpian ecclesiology). But I cannot even think of leaving yet. It is one thing to leave the OCA or the Antiochians, or the GOA, who are all IN error (and not minute, hair-splitting errors either). It is quite another to leave the ROCOR because of something that they have not done that we assume in these frightening and (sometimes justifiably) paranoid times that they WILL do.

We all commit great and greivous sins before God, and the Church is patient and loving toward us, and forgives us our sins. Shouldnt we at least attempt to have a miniscule amount of that same patience in return for our hierarchs and priests, who have done so much for us? Dont we OWE the church at least that?

[Justin Kissel]

Noah,

Greetings! I hope you had a blessed Pascha. I'm going to take some time and chew over all these issues again, including the above post of yours I'll be perfectly frank with you though, the documents that I've read (on the ROCOR official website) that are coming from ROCOR bishops from the past few months have only further assured me that I'm not barking up the totally wrong tree in many of my worries.

[Noah]

Mr. Kissel,

Agreed on all content! I will pray that your barking is heard as it is meant to be by any who would protect and guard the purity of the Church! But if the ROCOR does abandon itself, where would you go? And would that place force you to believe that the Holy Mysteries you recieve now are false? And is that acceptable? More imposrtantly, is it true? I guess what I am getting at (for my concerns and fears as well) is that True and Orthodox Ecclesiology has become so muddied and misdefined and perverted by those all around us that among the anti-ecumentists there is also much confusion and much error (heresy?). Whose ecclesiology is sound and True and Orthodox (which includes the proper belief about who does and does not have grace and valid Mysteries)? The grace vs. non-grace disputes (ROCOR/Cyprianites vs. ROAC/HOCNA/etc.) involve error and false belief on ONE of the sides. And these things can be debated endlessly, but what is at stake is more than loyalty to one's synod, it is Orthodox ecclesiology.

This does not at all mean for me that ROCOR cannot be wrong or sin and go down the wrong path, but it does mean that for those who confess the Cyprian/ROCOR ecclesiology like myself, the weight of the Truth of the Church in America rests on the synod of the Church Abroad in these days.

Please pull me back if I have gone to far in any of my reasoning

Noah