ROCOR position towards the MP.

Discussion about the various True Orthodox Churches around the world including current events. Subforums in other langauges, primarily English on the main forum.


Moderator: Mark Templet

Post Reply
User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

Tom,

I always understood that the Orthodox view of a bishop or patriarch's duty was to be the representatives of the people to God. The RC view is that they are the representatives of God to the people.

All through the history of the church, the people have been involved in the descisions of the direction the church body takes, otherwise, the heretic bishops and patriarchs of passed centuries would have done anything they wanted. As they did with the see of Rome.

The clergy are not our gods that we listen without question. Even when choosing a confessor, we are warned by the holy fathers to choose them wisely, because if not, they will be more detrimental to us then good.

If we see discrepencies, we have every right to question their intentions.

It's the laity that make up the body of the church. If there were no laity, then there would only be a lonely clergy serving by himself, alone.

The body of the church cannot exclude the laity.

Etienne
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Wed 21 April 2004 5:26 am

Post by Etienne »

Yes, Tom, I agree with you Orthodoxy is not either protestantism or, indeed, a democracy in the political sense. However, neither are the clergy or bishops rulers to be followed blindly. Such a thing sounds more like a form of Papalism.

To perhaps make the point, I attended for some years a monastic church. The igumen was something of an expert on the services and very particular that the deacon, reader and choir executed them diligently. Yet on more than one occasion I heard him say that if he made an error, we had the responsibility to challenge the error and to do so loudly and immediately.

If there is to be a move toward unification it will surely bear examination and transparency. Then neither Joasia nor her priest need be in the dark. Otherwise, surely, we have process more in keeping with the shennagins of diplomats scheming behind closed door and hiding behind obfuscation, impenetrable processes and language reminiscent of the world of politics. Look at Metropolitan Philaret's clear and direct language in the letter cited above. His was a pastoral approach and not that of a ruler.

Historically bishops have fallen into into error, and sometimes into great error. The conduct of the Church is something for which surely we all have a responsibility?

We are not merely the tail, to follow, pray, pay and obey like members of a cult.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Post by joasia »

There is another point that I am reminded of. Many Russians who are over 60, let's say, or older have voiced the belief, that they feel, in their hearts that they are spiritually responsible for what has happened to the Tsar family and the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole.

I scratched my head and wondered why they felt that they were responsible for something that they didn't do, as they were children at the time or not even born yet.

It is this Russian spirituality that connects all their souls. But, as I pondered this, I realized that it is the Orthodox spiritual thinking that is so deeply embedded in their faith.

Therefore, it also applies to their mentality of the state of ROCA and the MP today. They are deeply hurting to the bottom of their hearts for the state of the church body we are in now. And that is why the laity cannot be excluded from such important decisions.

It's more on the level of the Russian Orthodox soul, connected somehow. A wise old Russian lady told me once, that we deserve our situation because of our sinful state.

As you see, Russia has been going down hill before 1917. If we can inherit physical ailments from our ancestors, then how much more can we inherit their sins?

But, on a spiritual level, it is not limited to heridity of flesh but of spirit and that spirit is Orthodoxy and all who are born in it or converted to it.

So the sin becomes part of our spiritual heritage when we convert to it, too.

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Tom,

I think the laity had much more power in the ancient Church than they tend to have now, at least from what I've seen. I think many practices from the ancient Church would be accused of being "Protestant" if they were used today. In fact, I've given a couple quotes on the Patristics thread over the years just to demonstrate this exact point ;)

Post Reply