Well, er... let me say this, and then go back over everything and not say anything for a while (I'm a bit slow and it takes things a while to process). If and when I were to leave ROCOR, my family and I would go to the Greek Old Caldendarist Church (GOC) under Archbp. Chrysostomos (Kiousis). We would be baptized. What that means about the mysteries experienced in ROCOR (and whether, in fact, I should even be participating in those mysteries considering everything) I'm still trying to work through. I too once held strongly to a Cyprianite ecclesiology; it's the reason that I was married in an Antiochian Church even though I wouldn't attend their services on Sunday morning (ie. I thought the Antiochians were grace-filled, and could therefore sacramentally marry me, but I couldn't in good conscience partake of communion next to non-Chalcedonians). About late last summer I started to leave that ecclesiology. There was a lot of posts on this board about the various issues... maybe from June of last year through October. FWIW, if I had to pick a model ecclesiology, it'd be the one outlined by St. Justin Popovich in two documents; his book The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, and his work On A Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church. I've probably already said more than I should have (in more ways than one). Please forgive me if I don't return to this thread for a month (if I do, I'll probably be tempted to write more, hehe 
).
Ecclesiological Dissonance
Moderator: Mark Templet
-
Justin Kissel
-
Justin Kissel
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.
The answer will most likely depend on who you ask. Some will say it is because the Serbs are Orthodox (or that at least many of them are). Some will say it is because Serbia helped us in our "hour or need," and therefore we have a special relationship with them. Some will say it's because we need to be in communion with them in order to be Orthodox. I don't agree with the validity of any of these answers, but they are the ones I've heard sincere members of ROCOR give.
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 ... doesnt place the ROCOR in direct communion with World Orthodoxy, why should we assume that communion with the MP would?
Our communion with Serbia puts us in (so-called) "indirect" communion with world Orthodoxy. The thing about the MP is that we will be one Church. This doesn't seem to be getting through to people—either that or I’m just plain bonkers! As I see it, we will be the same Church. The "MP" and "ROCOR" will cease to exist. Period. What will be left will the the one "Russian Church". That is the entire goal of the process, and has been the hope of ROCOR since the beginning. Claiming that ROCOR will maintain some type of distance or autonomy seems to me to be, at best, mistaken (and at worse, downright deceptive). The whole point is to become one Russian Church. So, unless the MP were to cut ties with Antioch, Constantinople, et al, you can be sure that the one Russian Church will be in communion with them. This is why I phrased things in the original post the way I did. "Those who are now in ROCOR". I emphasised "now" because at a later time, if there is unity, there will be no ROCOR. There will only be the (so-called) Russian Church.
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.
Personally, I'm not leaving because of what they might do, but because of what they are doing and have done. More importantly, though, I am not "leaving" one group so much as "joining" another. I see it as a positive step, and am not going to attack those whom I leave (though I do feel like I should explain my worries). I've not mentioned the Cyprianite union as a factor in my leaving, but it is indeed one. So, the synod you would choose to be under should you leave ROCOR is ironically a synod that is pushing me away from ROCOR (or rather, ROCOR's acceptance of Met. Cyprian's synod is pushing me away from ROCOR--and the fact that I suspect they will, of necessity, drop Met. Cyprian like a rock as they approach union with the MP does not help).
More importantly, we will not be leaving ROCOR for mostly negative reasons, but will be going someplace else for positive ones. My wife and I counted ourselves sojourners when we joined ROCOR, and we still consider ourselves such. We are still looking for our home. We are tired of sojourning. We know that no home is perfect; we're simply looking for a place where we can work out our salvation.
My head is spinning with this subject. (No critizism of any contributor intended).
Some 25 years ago I started visiting a Matthewite church. I loved the old parish priest, who was a gentle soul. His parishioners were different. One thing I clearly remember was being quizzed about the exact dates of my childrens' baptisms. (In order to check whether they needed to be done, again). This shocked me then and still does.
Over the years I have been given 'shifting' advice on who was 'in' and who was 'out'. Originally the only people to avoid 'at all costs' were the MP. Nothing was said about their being 'without grace', but they were guilty of the sin of Sergianism, later 'ecumenism' was added. The EP was at times possibly best avoided. The Serbs seemed always to be in with those who had spent their exile there, but the Free Serbs were to be avoided. (This schism has been resolved).
Now, seemingly lead by Archbishop Mark, the pathway to a Russian reconciliation is open.
Has the MP changed? There is a 'traditionally' minded tendency among seminarians and clergy, but an 'ecumenically' minded faction is apparent among the heirarchy at the highest level. The Patriarch seems to have gotten apologies for the 'strong' statements made by ROCOR in the (not so distant) past, but appears not to have purged himself of his Sergianism or his links with state organs! Much is sometimes made of ROCOR being a 'temporary' administrative body. Until and unless the MP has repented of its' Sergianism and Ecumenism the raison d'etre of ROCOR is as valid today as ever, surely? Or is it - a possibly unworthy thought - that some are more anxious for recognition and acceptance, especially by a Russian people for whom most of this appears totally irrelevant.
The seeming distance of the MP from ecumenical bodies, it appears to me, is more to do with defending your patch rather than some defence of theological integrity.
As to the dissenters; one - now a bishop - said one thing regarding the Serbs and when the Serbian Patriarch complained my priest got a rocket for complying with instructions not to serve with a SP priest!
Dissonance is a very accurate term for a situation which appears to lack a number of features, particularly any consistency of thought or action..
I remain on the sidelines waiting for some clear sign of what's what.....
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)?
Individual Matthewites hold a variety of opinions about ROCOR during any given period. The main issue in 1976 was the actions of Archbishop Antony of Geneva (especially concelebrations with New Calendarists), which were a scandal to our faithful in Greece.
Our Church considers Ecumenism a heresy and the New Calendar impermissible, and you can find among our clergy and faithful a few people who actually do hold to the "extreme" views usually attributed to us. But most Matthewites are more reserved. Our former Archbishop Andreas is known to have viewed the 1983 Anathema favorably, and most Matthewites are quite sympathetic toward Metropolitan Philaret.
Our Holy Synod doesn't have an official position on ROCOR. In 1935, the Holy Synod officially referred to the state church of Greece and its clergy as "the schismatic Church and its schismatic ministers, from whom the grace of the All-holy Spirit has departed, since they have set at nought the resolution of the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and all the Pan-Orthodox Councils that condemned the Gregorian festal calendar." As far as I know, we have no official position on any other jurisdiction, though the clear implication of the 1935 Encyclical is that all New Calendarists are schismatic.
Informally and unofficially, most Matthewites believe that ROCOR has been careless in its relations with Ecumenists and is now dominated by Ecumenists.
Patrick
Etienne wrote:Some 25 years ago I started visiting a Matthewite church. I loved the old parish priest, who was a gentle soul. His parishioners were different. One thing I clearly remember was being quizzed about the exact dates of my childrens' baptisms. (In order to check whether they needed to be done, again). This shocked me then and still does.
You don't say what your family's history was, but in general the Greek Old Calendarists, both Matthewite and Florinite, require the proper Orthodox form of baptism to have been administered. The general practice (except for the Cyprianites) is that people coming from the jurisdictions of World Orthodoxy are received by Chrismation, unless they were not properly baptized in the first place. Those who have never received the Orthodox form of baptism -- for example, former Protestants who were received into their former jurisdiction by Chrismation -- are almost always baptized.
However, the Greek Old Calendarists, like all other churches, have members who are not necessarily well-informed. I was formerly a Florinite and am now a Matthewite, and have not observed any significant difference in general practice, and I have encountered both Matthewites and Florinites who were not well-informed. That is not to say I discount the "folk beliefs" one encounters in the church; they have their own wisdom.
Patrick