ROCOR

[ania]

Ania,

3. Administration-- Probably actually the biggest concern for many priests, clergy, etc. Who would be in charge or ROCOR if union was to occur? That's why the push right now is toward concelebration, rather than administrative union.

This is very strange, if we are to take the "two parts of one Russian Church" talk seriously. If the MP really is one part of that "Russian Church", then it would follow (by her own mandate) ROCOR would have no choice but to submit to the MP, returning to it's "mother Church".

It's my opinion that the church administration came to the same conclusion. However, 70+ years of seperation are not to be taken lightly, and full reunification will take alot of time and negotiations. Met. Lavr is going to Russia in early May, and we will see how that goes.

Of course, the ideal would be, the MP gets our holdings in Russia (since cononically we shouldn't have any holdings in Russia, & we're the Church Abroad or the Church Outside Russia, and had generally left inside of Russia to the Catacomb Church, before the fall of communism), and any and all MP holdings outside of Russia would go to ROCOR.

I'm surprised/disappointed that this issue is paid very little attention by those supportive of ROCOR's post-Cyprian orientation.

Obviously there was a time, relatively recently, where the leadership of ROCOR saw nothing inappropriate (indeed they saw this as being a moral duty) about going into the "MP's turf" and consecrating Bishops, and taking entire communities in Russia under ROCOR's care. Perhaps I only become more and more dense as the days fly by - but how can such act be licit (particularly in an officially post-communist Russia), in the territory of a body which allegedly forms the major part of the "Russian Orthodox Church"?

I know personally, several priests & bishops who were very against going into MP "turf." They saw it as unconnonical then, and still see it as unconnonical now. It was done during a ROCOR administration that did not take much stock in how a large number of ROCOR clergy & laity looked at the issue.

There would seem to be only two conclusions that one could get from this - ROCOR had involved itself in the creation of schisms and is worthy of the slander she had been subjected to for so many years (ROCOR = "un-canonical" or "schismatic"), or she was operating under a set of principles which her leadership for whatever reason has decided to cast aside. In either case, one thing remains the same - a change has occured in the ROCOR...given this, I'm puzzeled at the much protesting that such has not in fact occured.

Seraphim

The change in administrative policy is of course obvious. We wouldn't have as many problems if it wasn't. However, Met. Lavr is of the views of the old heirarchy, which does not go along with the mandates of the Met. Vitaly administration. During Met. Vitaly's rule, especially toward the end, there was quite a bit of clergy (convert, ROCOR born, & Russian alike) who were either seriously considering or even ready to leave ROCOR because of the policies of his administration toward the MP, Serbs, and any number of other issues. Compared to their numbers, the ammount of people who left for ROAC or ROCiE are actually much less. Food for thought....

Anyway, I do get paid for sitting at this desk, so I suppose I should get down to business.

Cio til later.
Ania

[Seraphim Reeves]

Ania,

Thank you for your reply. In many ways it reflects my own "assessment" of this subject...not so much in it's conclusions (obviously) but in it's statement of the material facts coming into play in ROCOR's past (in particular, since it's chosen isolation from "world Orthodoxy".)

(btw. for anyone reading this...forgive the length of this post. I have great difficult with economy of words, given my "completist" way of both expressing myself and conveying ideas I've come upon.)

I know personally, several priests & bishops who were very against going into MP "turf." They saw it as unconnonical then, and still see it as unconnonical now. It was done during a ROCOR administration that did not take much stock in how a large number of ROCOR clergy & laity looked at the issue.

I have no doubt that such misgivings did exist. I also have no doubt that there were equally grave misgivings regarding the '83 Anathema Against Ecumenism. However, on the flip side, there was obviously support for both also - both lay and clerical (and obviously, heirarchal.)

The change would seem to be (giving this a simple surface reading without, for now at least, offering too much in the way of interpretation) that on a heirarchal/administrative level, those who had those "misgivings" in the past (openly or quietly) or who have otherwise now come to the same conclusions as those who had these doubts, are the ones manning the helm in ROCOR... not the St.Philarets, or Met. Vitalys, etc.

The change in administrative policy is of course obvious. We wouldn't have as many problems if it wasn't. However, Met. Lavr is of the views of the old heirarchy, which does not go along with the mandates of the Met. Vitaly administration. During Met. Vitaly's rule, especially toward the end, there was quite a bit of clergy (convert, ROCOR born, & Russian alike) who were either seriously considering or even ready to leave ROCOR because of the policies of his administration toward the MP, Serbs, and any number of other issues. Compared to their numbers, the ammount of people who left for ROAC or ROCiE are actually much less. Food for thought....

Since you indulge in some interpretation here (which is only fair, of course) I will now offer my "interpretation" of these things...starting with that which is less speculative (and more a repetition of material facts and obvious realities), and ending with that which is more "conclusion" than a simple repetition of "how things were" (or "are".)

I - It would appear that for some time, there have been two basic parties in ROCOR. Some may characterize these as being "hawks" as opposed to "doves", others may call it a divide between "the sound" and the "unsound." I suppose that would require further argumentation. Suffice it to say, these two basic camps somehow managed to live together for quite a while, if often uneasily.

II - This "peace" between the doves/unsound and hawks/sound was in large measure built upon silence. Whether this took the form of the Synod never explicitly condemning certain groups, making statements about the "Orthodoxy" or grace of said groups, or (less prudently, as time has shown, since it has become quite a point of confusion and can be interpreted in various ways) simply not enforcing any sort of hard discipline regarding just who ROCOR clergy (and even heirarchs) should commune and concelebrate with...such vagueness is what allowed these basically disagreeable parties to live together. Thus, while you could have Bishop X refuse to allow his Priests to concelebrate with Serbian or JP clergy, Bishop Y (while typically not openly encouraging this, at least not until relatively recently) was either ambivelent towards this, or even winked at it. Bishop X would be able to justify his position on the obvious implications of the '83 Anathema. However, Bishop Y (though I'd argue, unconvincingly and only with much stretching and sophistry) could interpret this same Anathema in a different light, and basically reduce it's significance to almost nil in determining the spiritual/"metaphysical" reality of ROCOR's relationship to both the MP and "world Orthodoxy" in general.

III - If in the wake of the EP's "lifting" of the Church's anathemas against Papism ROCOR's leadership could be said to have become "hawkish" towards so called "world Orthodoxy", as the 90's progressed it can equally be said ROCOR's leadership began warming up toward "world Orthodoxy"...a process which began on a doctrinal/theoretical level (the official adoption of the Cyrpianite ecclessiology), and has progressed further to many highly placed, adamant statements about just who ROCOR is in communion with, and who they are working towards being officially united with (MP).

Both the "moving away from" and now "moving towards" world Orthodoxy involved official acts of ROCOR's leadership. At one time ROCOR was assisting the GOC of Greece (whose position toward the State Church of Greece and "world Orthodoxy" was quite unambiguous), to the point of even trying to mend it's troubles with the Matthewites...at one time she was writing sorrowful letters to the leaders of world Orthodoxy, culminating in a clear Anathema of that which she'd been admonishing them about (ecumenism.) At one time she had obviously chosen isolation from said heirarchies, her relationship with the Serbs and JP at best being a "grey" area (and only such, arguably, due to the reasons I previously mentioned, and not because of any official, positive appraisal of said local churches). However, as the 90's progressed, it was clear ROCOR was (equally "officially") moving away from this. First the Cyprianite "resistor" view was officially adopted - a view which both affirms and contradicts the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism (affirming on one hand that "world Orthodoxy" is in heresy, sufficient to justify ROCOR's self imposed exile from such bodies - denying the Anathema on the other hand, by it's affirmation that said heretical bodies could still be considered legitimate parts of the Church with grace bearing mysteries; something which the '83 document, upon careful reading, explicitly denies). Now, even the Cyprianites (who appear to have been but a bridge) are being left in the dust by ROCOR - having affirmed the legitimacy and genuine nature of "world Orthodoxy", ROCOR is now busily working towards it's full re-integration with said "churches."

This was the truly scandalous thing about the Cyprianite merger, and the explicit statement that said merger occured precisely because of a shared ecclessiological outlook. One could have argued (though I do not think convincingly) perhaps "oh yes, the Anathema is valid...but it has not been in reality incurred by anyone, by definition, by any local church in communion with the EP." But this is not what occured - rather there was an acceptance that such groups were indeed guilty (thus justifying ROCOR's "seperatism"), but that this guilt was of no immediate spiritual consequence (as in rendering them parasynagogues, sects, schisms, etc. and all that the Church has traditionally understood to be the spiritual/mysteriological consequence of such a condition.) Hence, the meetness of saying that ROCOR did fall under it's own sword, when it joined with the Cyprianites.

Oh yes...another obvious part of that "moving away" was the cessation of all ties with the GOC of Greece, etc. (as if that were not clearly implied/required in officially joining with a body anathema to all of the GOC's, even those who are antagnonistic toward one another.)

IV - Something of a time of decision has come for those within ROCOR, whether Bishops, clergy, or laity. Some would argue (ROAC) that this is old news. Others (ROCiE) would say it is more recent... and I do not doubt in the near future, current events in ROCOR will force out yet another wave of disagreeable (to ROCOR's new orientation) souls. Basically, ROCOR has been taking on positions (officially) which are forcing her "hawks" out of her fold.

(Now for some heavy interpretation)

Some may wonder why it is that this move towards the "dove" position on an official level is forcing these "hawks" out, when the official adoption/articulation of "hawkish" positions by ROCOR in recent decades prior to all of this didn't have the same effect on "doves". In large part, this has to do with the nature of the two positions.

The "hawks" in general operate from a fundamentally doctrinal, principled position. Dogmatic questions are taken extremely seriously by this group, as are canonical considerations. By it's nature, such a position/mindset is going to always be less yielding, less indulgent of pragmatism (though certainly not utterly devoid of it) at least on questions of a clearly doctrinal/ecclessiological nature.

OTOH the bread and butter of the "dove" position is comprimise. Thus, it could live with ignoring (or quietly working to undermine) official positions taken by ROCOR's leadership which weighed heavily against it's own point of view. It is also a position which is ruled chiefly by sentimentality, rather than doctrinal considerations to begin with - this was the basis of their relationship with the Serbs and JP (Serbs in particular) if we are going to speak plainly ("we can't be 'mean' to the Serbs - they were so good to us in times past, so helpful to our cause early on".) I don't think it's an unfair conclusion (taking this for granted, of course) to say that such sentimentality undoubtedly weighed against any move for the "doves" to pack up and separate in any sizable number from the old, more "hawkish" ROCOR. "Hey, this is our Church, our beloved institution...we can't just up and leave."

My conclusion (for what it's worth, which is likely precious little...but it is where I've come to on the matter), summary, interpretation of this whole situation is as follows...

a) ROCOR began as a means of organizing the Russian episcopate in exile, and protecting it from the interferance of the communist dominated MP.

b) With time, the fall of the MP became increasingly clear.

c) Parallel to this was the rise of the ecumenist heresy and the changes in praxis (calendar in particular) joined to it. It's quite clear that ROCOR's conscience was always troubled by these developments, but this was also a progression - ROCOR not breaking it's ties with "world Orthodoxy" in total until matters had (as far as it was concerned) came to a head with the EP's lifting of the anathemas. Arguably, what was clear to others much earlier, only became obvious to ROCOR by this time.

d) Joined to the world wide defection of Ecumenism, was another troubling fact (and sign of contradiction, really) - while ROCOR had obvious problems with the MP and it's legitimacy, the rest of "world Orthodoxy" did not. Ultimatly, no one would do as ROCOR did in terms of their relationship with the MP (save the anti-ecumenist Old Calendarists.) Like with what I wrote in point "c", this all took time to sink in, at least for ROCOR.

e) Ambiguity for a long time allowed two parties (who I do not mean to portray as absolute, monlothic groups - there has obviously been some overlap in terms of the personalities, or changes/shifting in personal views over time in many cases...however, I think the positions themselves, apart from personalities, are ultimatly quite distinct), two types of thought, to co-exist under a single umbrella. That situation could not last forever, with the situation outside of ROCOR only becoming increasingly desperate, and the battle lines outside of ROCOR becoming more clearly defined (such as what happened amongst the "Florinite" Old Calendarists.)

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

bogoliubtsy

Or, perhaps there was a change in direction under the former Metropolitan to a more "hardline" stance. Perhaps now ROCOR is moving back towards its original stance.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you are correct (and you very well may be). My question then is: how is such a move justified? You say "moving back" as though ROCOR is the only thing that has changed, and it is simply returning to where it originally was. In reality, though, the context in which ROCOR is living has completely changed, and gotten progressively worse as the years have gone by. Having broken from world Orthodoxy decades ago, what justifies a move back towards them now? I doubt that anyone would argue that things (e.g., the calendar, ecumenism, etc.) have generally improved in the last decade... so what is the reasoning of ROCOR on this point?

[Seraphim Reeves]

The spin-meisters are busy at work it seems. Not too long ago, any claim of a "change" was being vehemently denied by the usual suspects. I suppose that is no longer a tenable claim this, (indeed, it was always quite perposterous...perhaps now it is simply glaringly so) so now we have the new line - "well, it's a change, but a change back to an even older way of doing things and thinking."

Of course this is really nothing new - it was always quite apparent that the clique running ROCOR now were part of an older, perhaps less vocal in times past, party of those who quietly felt the '83 Anathema was a mistake (among other things.) Perhaps it is good that this is more or less being admitted now, out in the open (though I suspect few will have ears to hear this admission for what it is.)

It's the "dogmatists" vs. the "sentamentalists" it would seem.

The claim that this new orientation is really only a "return" would hold water only if we ignored the facts of recent history. ROCOR's self imposed isolation from "world Orthodoxy" was not a fickle reaction to a static world - rather it was a response to a progressively worsening (indeed, it has only soured all the more) situation. The combination of the rest of the local Churches being ambivelent towards the question of the MP legitimacy and the plight of the Catacomniks (and ROCOR herself), joined to the growing obscenity of the ecumenical movement, really gave ROCOR no other choice.

The sad thing is, the revisionists helming the new and improved ROCOR, are doing everything to the memory of the Synod which her enemies could never quite do - including more of less admitting "from the inside" that for years, yes, ROCOR was but a sectarian, uncharitable institution built on misguided zealotry and divisivness. The idea that ROCOR had a right to exist as long as it has without recognizing the illegitimacy of the MP and "world Orthodoxy" is ridiculous - thus all we can implicitly draw from the "new ROCOR" party line is that yes, the detractors of ROCOR were right all along.

Seraphim