ROCOR - read between the lines

ania · Post by **ania** » Thu 13 May 2004 2:13 pm

Serafim,
Do you have any idea how long it will take to administratively combine? This will involve property rights, who will have what say in what, who will be in charge of $ when it is donated, lots of legal stuff, not to mention where what bishops will be placed & how to combine parishes or which will be a main parish in cities where there are both MP & ROCOR. All very complicated stuff. It all needs to be worked out, books need to be looked over, not to mention who gets what in the ROCOR parishes in Russia. This can not happen overnight. What can happen overnight is the concelebration of the liturgy. That is why they are talking now, to show a unified front, but to give time to figure out if there will be a full union, and if so, how it will work out. There is a BIG difference. Do not think that ROCOR will just hand over the keys to all the churches and be done with it. Nuh-uh. Do not think ROCOR synod will go for that. They've had 70+ years of independent rule, & they can think for themselves.

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu 13 May 2004 4:18 pm

Fistly,
OOD, I'm sorry. I have to kinda agree with Peter and Ania, the running commentary was a bit over the top.

Secondly,

ania wrote:
What can happen overnight is the concelebration of the liturgy. That is why they are talking now, to show a unified front, but to give time to figure out if there will be a full union...

Isn't this kinda like putting the cart before the horse? This is a big worry of mine over the ROCOR/MP talks. I would hate to see Eucharistic communion established before things are taken care of first, such as the MP's memebership in the WCC and their communion with other WCC members .

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 13 May 2004 4:22 pm

Daniel,

The ROCOR Synod has stated a number of times that Eucharistic Communion will be the "crowning event" of these discussions, not a means to further unity- but an expression of the unity.
Not to worry.

Etienne · Post by **Etienne** » Thu 13 May 2004 4:39 pm

The issue of ROCOR and the MPs relationship raises variously hopes and hackles, as has been all too clearly seen in this thread.

A thing that puzzles me is the absence of evidence of repentance on the part of the 'senior' hierarchy of the MP, in relation to Sergianism and Ecumenism. (Remember those 'Sorrowful Epistles' of Metropolitan Philaret). Without being sarcastic or attacking 'anyone' I really cannot see the what has changed between ROCOR and the MP in terms of church life, as opposed to what has clearly happened in as regards the political situation in the Russian Federation.

(I do not believe that wishing to avoid Ecumenism means you have to be rude and hostile to everyone else. Although simply not being well-disposed to this 'ism' is enough to get you 'labelled' as anti-Christian in very un-Christian terms. I know, it has happened to me more than once).

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Thu 13 May 2004 4:51 pm

I guess that's the fruits of idle time and lose lips. Tongue-in-cheek or not, everyone has my deepest apologies.

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Thu 13 May 2004 5:08 pm

sgjspencer wrote:
The issue of ROCOR and the MPs relationship raises variously hopes and hackles, as has been all too clearly seen in this thread.

A thing that puzzles me is the absence of evidence of repentance on the part of the 'senior' hierarchy of the MP, in relation to Sergianism and Ecumenism. (Remember those 'Sorrowful Epistles' of Metropolitan Philaret). Without being sarcastic or attacking 'anyone' I really cannot see the what has changed between ROCOR and the MP in terms of church life, as opposed to what has clearly happened in as regards the political situation in the Russian Federation.

(I do not believe that wishing to avoid Ecumenism means you have to be rude and hostile to everyone else. Although simply not being well-disposed to this 'ism' is enough to get you 'labelled' as anti-Christian in very un-Christian terms. I know, it has happened to me more than once).

On Ecumenism, From the Moscow Patriarchate's 2000 Sobor:

“…The so-called "branch theory", which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totally unacceptable. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize "the equality of the denominations". Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal. Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realize that, in spite of all the differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in "what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors…. It is inadmissible to introduce relativism into the realm of faith, to limit unity in faith to a narrow set of necessary truths so that beyond them "freedom in what is doubtful" may be allowed.”

On repentance, delivered on the 75 anniversary of the muder of the Royal Family :
"With augmented prayer and great pain in our hearts we commemorate this sad Anniversary… The sin of regicide, which took place amid the indifference of the citizens of Russia, has not been repented of by our people. Being a transgression of both the law of God and civil law, this sin weighs extremely heavily upon the souls of our people, upon its moral conscience. And today, on behalf of the whole Church, on behalf of her children, both reposed and living, we proclaim repentance before God and the people for this sin. Forgive us, O Lord! We call to repentance all of our people, all of our children, regardless of their political views and opinions about history, regardless of their attitude toward the idea of Monarchy and the personality of the last Russian Tsar. Repentance of the sin committed by our forefathers should become for us a banner of unity. May today’s sad date unite us in prayer with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, with whom we so sincerely desire restoration of spiritual unity in faithfulness to the Spirit of Christ... .» - Patriarch Alexey.

Also, keep in mind that the new martyrs have been glorified- including some of those who did not follow Metropolitan Sergius.

For more information, see the Moscow Patriarchate's 2000 Jubilee Council decisions here : http://www.mospat.ru/chapters/e_conception/
Worth checking out is "Church and State".

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu 13 May 2004 8:58 pm

bogoliubtsy wrote:
On Ecumenism, From the Moscow Patriarchate's 2000 Sobor:

“…The so-called "branch theory", which is connected with the conception referred to above and asserts the normal and even providential nature of Christianity existing in the form of particular "branches", is also totally unacceptable. Orthodoxy cannot accept that Christian divisions are caused by the inevitable imperfections of Christian history and that they exist only on the historical surface and can be healed or overcome by compromises between denominations. The Orthodox Church cannot recognize "the equality of the denominations". Those who have fallen away from the Church cannot re-unite with her in their present state. The existing dogmatic differences should be overcome, not simply bypassed, and this means that the way to unity lies through repentance, conversion and renewal. Also unacceptable is the idea that all the divisions are essentially tragic misunderstandings, that disagreements seem irreconcilable only because of a lack of mutual love and a reluctance to realize that, in spite of all the differences and dissimilarities, there is sufficient unity and harmony in "what is most important". Our divisions cannot be reduced to human passions, to egoism, much less to cultural, social and political circumstances which are secondary from the Church's point of view. Also unacceptable is the argument that the Orthodox Church differs from other Christian communities with which she does not have communion only in secondary matters. The divisions and differences cannot all be reduced to various non-theological factors…. It is inadmissible to introduce relativism into the realm of faith, to limit unity in faith to a narrow set of necessary truths so that beyond them "freedom in what is doubtful" may be allowed.”

Please forgive me, Bogo, I kinda have a hard time taking the above statement with more than just a grain of salt. Mainly because at the time the MP say this, they still are active members of the WCC. If they truly think the branch theory is heretical then why don't they withdraw their membership in the WCC, and break communion with those who remain? Otherwise, I don't see how the above statement carries much credence. Any thoughts?