ROCOR PROPERTY AND THE UNION

[John Haluska]

"We Cannot Remain Silent After Such Statements—This Will Turn Our Flock Against the Ongoing Talks."

Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, President of the Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on Discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate, Reacts to the Statement Made by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy During a Meeting with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas.

As reported by the official websites in Russia, while on a trip to Russia on Monday, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas visited Danilov Monastery in Moscow, where he met with His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia.

Over the course of their conversation, His Holiness the Patriarch expressed gratitude to the leadership of the Palestinian Autonomy for transferring to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission of the Moscow Patriarchate church property in Hebron and Jericho, which had been preserved and protected for many years by the Russian Church Abroad.

In 1997, representatives of the Palestinian Authority forcibly ejected monks and nuns belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia from Holy Trinity Monastery in Hebron (who had been collecting fruits there that day) and turned it over to the Moscow Patriarchate.

In January 2000, on the day of St Seraphim of Sarov, soon after the celebration of the 2000th year of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem, monastics (mainly those who had been ejected from Hebron in 1997) were arrested by Palestinian forces, again with the use of physical force, at the premises of the Russian Church Abroad in Jericho, which was then turned over to the Moscow Patriarchate.

"I presume that the time has come when it is legally necessary to secure this property in the name of the Mission (of the ROC/MP—ed.)," stated His Holiness Patriarch Alexy.

The members of the Committee of the discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate had expected that the Moscow Patriarchate, as a symbol of peacemaking, would return at least one of the properties seized unlawfully in the Holy Land, which would be a noble gesture on the part of the ROC/MP and would heal the most recent wound on the Body of the Russian Church.

For this reason, the statement made by the Moscow Patriarchate elicited a protest on the part of the President of the Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The request made by the Moscow Patriarchate is even more stunning since, as far as it is known, the ROC/MP has not yet succeeded in formalizing the legal ownership of church property either in Russia or in Israel or in lands controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

"I am very disappointed," stated Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany to Kommersant correspondent Pavel Korobov, "For at the beginning of the process a declaration was made that we must refrain from any actions and statements that could insult the other side. And this is precisely such an action.

We cannot remain silent to such a statement—this will turn our entire flock against the talks," added His Eminence Archbishop Mark. "But if this is a misunderstanding, a corresponding statement should be issued."

"Very recently," continued Archbishop Mark, "the Moscow Patriarchate expressed its opinion that one must re-ordain all our priests in Russia. But not one of our bishops would agree to this. Sometimes I ask myself, maybe this is someone's attempt to sabotage the process of negotiations."

In a recent interview given to NG-Religiya, Archbishop Mark noted:

"There are such fears [within the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—ed.] regarding property.

The President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, during a meeting with us in May of this year, in the presence of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II and of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, unequivocally spoke out on this topic, stressing that neither the Russian Government nor the ROC/MP will make any claims on the property of the Church Abroad.

Still, many are not convinced! It is necessary that steps be taken to ensure such trust."

Press Service of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

++++++++++++++++++++
Over the course of their conversation, His Holiness the Patriarch expressed gratitude to the leadership of the Palestinian Autonomy for transferring to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission of the Moscow Patriarchate church property in Hebron and Jericho, which had been preserved and protected for many years by the Russian Church Abroad.

In 1997, representatives of the Palestinian Authority forcibly ejected monks and nuns belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia from Holy Trinity Monastery in Hebron (who had been collecting fruits there that day) and turned it over to the Moscow Patriarchate.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Moscow the perpetrator of this heinous act? Wasn't the PLO just a dupe used to force out the monks and nuns?

Honesty from Moscow would be very refreshing regarding this topic, as opposed to pretending that the PLO "just helped".

As per Mr. Putin’s comment regarding property of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, specifically,

"…The President of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, during a meeting with us in May of this year, in the presence of His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II and of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, unequivocally spoke out on this topic, stressing that neither the Russian Government nor the ROC/MP will make any claims on the property of the Church Abroad."

Questions:

1. Is Mr. Putin’s above comment not Sergianism?

2. “The Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church”, unequivocally states what is “church”
   Property.

In essence, as is stated in the “Statute”, anyone who “voluntarily” joins the Russian Orthodox Church submits to the “Statute”. This means that, unless the “Statute” is either negated, or cast aside, properties that now belong to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, will automatically belong to the Moscow patriarchate when the final “union” takes place. That is a DIRECT reading from the “Statute”. It is not a personal comment.

Mr. Putin can state all he wishes with respect to the C.I.S., and Russia proper. However, unless there is a mistake, he can speak absolutely NOTHING about the disposition of properties of the Russian Orthodox Church, as he does NOT control ANY of its properties.

Is that the case or is it not?

A clarification by either/both Mr. Putin and Patr. Alexeii regarding property appears to be in order.

It "should" state that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia retains EVERY piece of property it now owns, and that absolutely NOTHING belongs to Moscow after the union (in 12 - 18 months as per news agency novosti).

However, according to the "Statute" this is NOT the case.

John

For information, here is a small portion of the Statute pertaining to property.

THE STATUTE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH

I. General provisions

1. The Russian Orthodox Church is a multinational Local Autocephalous Church in doctrinal unity and in prayerful and canonical communion with other Local Orthodox Churches.

2. The Self-governing Churches, Exarchates, Dioceses, Synodal departments, Deaneries, Parishes, Monasteries, Brotherhoods, Sisterhoods, Theological educational institutions, Missions, Representations and Church representations (hereinafter called ‘canonical units’), which constitute the Russian Orthodox Church, canonically comprise the Moscow Patriarchate.

‘The Moscow Patriarchate’ Is another official name of The Russian Orthodox Church.

1. The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church shall include persons of Orthodox confession living on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan and Estonia and also Orthodox Christians living in other countries and voluntarily joining this jurisdiction .

2. The Russian Orthodox Church exercises its activities with respect of and adherence to the acting laws in each state on the basis of:
   a) the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition;
   b) the canons and rules of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the Holy Fathers;

VI. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Synodal Institutions

1. The Moscow Patriarchate shall be an institution of the Russian Orthodox Church, uniting the structures, which are supervised directly by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.
   The Moscow Patriarchate shall be governed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

2. The Synodal institution shall be an institution of the Russian Orthodox Church in charge of general church matters in its competence.
   *********************
   I. General provisions

3. The Russian Orthodox Church is a multinational Local Autocephalous Church in doctrinal unity and in prayerful and canonical communion with other Local Orthodox Churches.

4. The Self-governing Churches, Exarchates, Dioceses, Synodal departments, Deaneries, Parishes, Monasteries, Brotherhoods, Sisterhoods, Theological educational institutions, Missions, Representations and Church representations (hereinafter called ‘canonical units’), which constitute the Russian Orthodox Church, canonically comprise the Moscow Patriarchate.

‘The Moscow Patriarchate’ Is another official name of The Russian Orthodox Church.

1. The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church shall include persons of Orthodox confession living on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Moldavia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tajikistan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan and Estonia…

…and also…

…Orthodox Christians living in other countries and voluntarily joining this jurisdiction.

1. In the event that the Parish meeting takes a decision to withdraw from the hierarchic structure and jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Parish shall no longer be recognized as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church. That will entail the cessation of the activities of the Parish as a religious organization of the Russian Orthodox Church and will deprive it of the right to property, which belonged to the Parish by the right of ownership, use or on any other legal basis, as well as the right to use the name and symbols of the Russian Orthodox Church in its name.

XV. Property and Assets

1. The assets of the Russian Orthodox Church and of its canonical units shall be formed from:
   a) donations received at the Divine services and for performing Sacraments, occasional offices and rites;
   b) voluntary donations of natural persons and legal entities, the state, public and other enterprises, institutions, organizations and foundations;
   c) donations received in connection with the dissemination of objects of an Orthodox religious purpose and Orthodox religious literature (books, journals, newspapers, audio- and video-recordings, etc.) and from the sale of these objects;
   d) income received from the activity of the institutions and enterprises of the Russian Orthodox Church assigned for the statutory objectives of the Russian Orthodox Church;
   e) allocations from the profits of the enterprises, dioceses, diocesan institutions, missions, church representations, representations, as well as parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, sisterhoods, their institutions, organizations, etc.;
   f) allocations from the profits of the enterprises established by the canonical units of the Russian Orthodox Church independently or together with other legal entities or natural persons;
   g) other returns which are not prohibited by the legislation, including income from securities and deposits in the deposit accounts;

2. The general church plan of expenditures shall be formed from the resources allocated by the dioceses, stavropegic monasteries and parishes of Moscow, as well as from the assets received for designated purpose from the sources mentioned in p.1 of this section.

3. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod shall manage the general church financial assets.

4. The Russian Orthodox Church may own the buildings, plots of land, objects of industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, the objects of religious purposes, financial assets and other property necessary for ensuring the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, including the objects classified as the monuments of history and culture, or receive the such for usage on other legal basis from the state, municipal, public and other organizations and citizens in accordance with the legislation of the country, where the property is located.

The Russian Orthodox Church owns the movable and immovable property in the distant abroad.

1. The property belonging to the canonical units of the Russian Orthodox Church by the right of ownership, use or on other legal basis, including the religious buildings, the buildings of the monasteries, general church and diocesan institutions, the Theological educational institutions, general church libraries, general church and diocesan archives, other buildings and facilities, plots of land, objects of religious worship, the objects used for social, charitable, cultural, educational and economic purposes, the financial assets, the literature and other property purchased or created at their own expense, donated by the natural persons and legal entities, enterprises, institutions and organizations, as well as handed over by the state and purchased on other legal basis shall be the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.

2. The manner of ownership, use and disposal of the property belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church by the right of ownership, use or on other legal basis shall be determined by the present Statute, the rules approved by the Holy Synod and the ‘Regulations on Church Property”.

3. The right of disposal of the property of the Russian Orthodox Church shall belong to the Holy Synod.

The ownership and use of the said property shall be exercised by the canonical units on the basis of the canonical, legal and material accountability to a superior canonical unit of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Holy Synod shall delegate the right of partial disposal of the said property, excluding the religious buildings, the buildings of the monasteries, the Diocesan institutions, the Theological schools, the general church, diocesan and other archives, the general church libraries and the objects of religious worship, which have historical value for the canonical units which own this property and use it on the basis of the accountability to the respective superior canonical unit of the Russian Orthodox Church.

1. The Self-governing Churches and the Exarchates shall use for their needs the plots of land, the buildings, including religious ones, the objects of industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, including those classified as the monuments of history and culture, as well as any other property which they need for ensuring their activity and which were made available for them by the state, municipal, public and other organizations and citizens, in accordance with the legislation of the country where the Self-governing Churches and the Exarchates are located or own the property.

2. The Self-governing Churches and the Exarchates shall use the property that belongs to them in accordance with the order determined in the ‘Regulations on Church Property’.

3. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Synodal departments shall be entitled to use for their needs the plots of land, the buildings, including religious ones, the objects of industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, including those classified as the monuments of history and culture, as well as any other property which they need for ensuring their activity and which were made available for them by the state, municipal, public and other organizations and citizens in accordance with the acting legislation, or own the property.

4. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Synodal institutions shall use the property belonging to them in accordance with the order determined in the ‘Regulations on Church Property’.

5. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall manage the financial assets of the Moscow Patriarchate.

6. The Synodal institutions shall be financed from the general church assets and through self-financing at the expense of the assets generated from the sources mentioned in p.1 of this section.

7. The heads of the Synodal institutions shall manage their assets within the plan of expenditures.

8. The diocesan budgets shall be formed from the sources mentioned in p.1 of this section.

9. The Diocesan Bishop shall manage the general diocesan assets.

10. The Diocese shall be entitled to use for its needs the plots of land, the buildings, including religious ones, the objects of the industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, including those classified as the monuments of history and culture, as well as any other property which they need for ensuring their activity and which were made available for them by the state, municipal, public and other organizations and citizens in accordance with the legislation of the country where the Diocese is located or owns the property.

11. The property which belongs to the Diocese by the right of ownership, including the buildings, constructions, the objects of religious purpose, the objects of social, charitable, cultural, educational and economic purposes, the plots of land, financial assets, literature and other property purchased or created at their own expense, donated by the natural persons and legal entities - enterprises, institutions and organizations, handed over by the state, as well as purchased on other legal basis, shall be the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.

12. In the event of the dissolution of the diocese as the legal entity, its movable and immovable property of religious purpose, which it possessed by the right of ownership, shall be transferred to the ownership of the Russian Orthodox Church, also in the person of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Other property shall be sold to satisfy the creditors and to meet the contractual and other legitimate claims of the legal entities and natural persons. After the legitimate claims of the creditors are met, the rest of the property shall be transferred to the ownership of the Russian Orthodox Church, also in the person of the Moscow Patriarchate.

1. In the event of the dissolution of the diocese, all property which it acquired by the right of economic management, efficient administration, use or any other legal basis in the manner and under the conditions stipulated by the law of the country where the diocese is located, shall be placed at the disposal of the Russian Orthodox Church, also in the person of the Moscow Patriarchate.

2. The financial assets of the parishes, monasteries, Theological educational institutions, brotherhoods or sisterhoods shall be formed from the sources mentioned in p.1 of this section.

The estimate of expenditure of the Theological educational institutions shall be approved by the Diocesan Bishop, and in the event of general church financing of the school, the Diocesan Bishop shall submit the estimate to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia for approval after its prior consideration by the Education Committee.

1. The financial assets of the parishes, monasteries, Theological educational institutions, brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall be managed on the basis of accountability to the Diocesan Bishop within the budgets approved by him respectively by the Chairman of the Parish Council together with the members of the Parish Council on the basis of accountability to the Parish Meeting headed by its chairman - the Rector of the parish; the abbot or father superior (mother superior) of the monastery; Rector of the Theological educational institution; chairman of the brotherhood or sisterhood together with the members of the Council of the brotherhood and the Council of the sisterhood.

2. The parishes, monasteries, Theological educational institutions, brotherhoods and sisterhoods shall be entitled to use for their needs the plots of land, the buildings, including religious ones, the objects of industrial, social, charitable, cultural, educational and other purposes, including those classified as the monuments of history and culture, as well as any other property which they need for ensuring their activity and which were made available for them by the state, municipal, public and other organizations and citizens in accordance with the legislation of the country where the parish, monastery, Theological educational institution, brotherhood or sisterhood are located or own the property.

3. In addition to the main church building, the parish may have with the blessing of the Diocesan Bishop the attached churches and chapels, including those in hospitals, boarding schools, old people’s homes, military units, places of imprisonment and cemeteries as well as in other places, provided that the legislation is observed.

4. The parishes, monasteries, Theological educational institutions, brotherhoods or sisterhoods may rent, build or purchase in the prescribed manner the houses and premises for their needs, as well as become owners of the necessary property.

5. The property belonging to the parishes, monasteries, Theological educational institutions, brotherhoods or sisterhoods by the right of ownership, including the buildings, constructions, objects of religious purpose, objects of social, charitable, cultural, educational and economic purposes, the plots of land, financial assets, libraries, the literature, other property, purchased or created at their own expense, donated by natural persons and legal entities - enterprises, institutions and organizations, handed over by the state as well as that purchased on other legal basis, shall be the property of the Russian Orthodox Church.

6. In the event of the dissolution of the parish, monastery or Theological educational institution as the legal entity, their movable and immovable property of religious purpose belonging to them by the right of ownership, shall be transferred into the ownership of the Diocese.
   Other property shall be sold to satisfy creditors and to meet contractual and other legitimate claims of the legal entities and natural persons. After the legal claims of the creditors are satisfied, the rest of the property shall be passed over to the Diocese.

7. In the event of the dissolution of the parish, monastery or Theological educational institution, all property which they acquired by the right of economic management, efficient administration, use and on other legal basis in the manner and under the conditions established by the law of the country, where the parish, monastery and Theological educational institution are located, shall be passed over to the Diocese.

8. In the event of the dissolution of the brotherhood and sisterhood as the legal entity, their movable and immovable property of religious purpose belonging to them by the right of ownership shall be transferred into the ownership of the parish, at which they were established. Other property shall be sold to satisfy creditors and to meet contractual and other legitimate claims of the legal entities and natural persons. After the legitimate claims of the creditors are met, the rest of the property shall be passed over to the aforementioned parish.

9. In the event of the dissolution of the brotherhood and sisterhood, all property which they acquired by the right of economic management, efficient administration, use or on any other legitimate basis in the manner and under the conditions stipulated by the law of the country where the brotherhood and sisterhood are located, shall be passed over to the parish at which they were established.

10. The institutions located abroad shall provide themselves with the assets in accordance with their opportunities and the laws of the countries on the territory of which they are located.

11. The institutions located abroad may receive subsidies from the general church assets. The size of the subsidies shall be determined by the Department for External Church Relations and approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Church money shall be deposited in the banks in the name of an institution located abroad and shall be cashed by cheques drawn by the manager of credits.

13. The institutions located abroad shall use the property belonging to them in the manner determined by the ‘Regulations on Church Property’.

14. The Holy Synod shall be entitled to make a financial auditing of general church and diocesan assets and shall set up a special Synodal commission for this purpose.

15. The financial auditing of the stavropegic monasteries shall be carried out by the Auditing commission appointed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

16. The financial auditing of the Diocesan monasteries, Diocesan administrations and parishes shall be carried out at the instruction of the Diocesan Bishop by the Auditing commission appointed by the diocesan authority.

17. The parish Auditing commission shall act in accordance with section XI, 55-59, of the present Statute.

18. The management and stocktaking of church property shall be carried out by materially accountable persons in accordance with the law of the country of location, the requirements of the present Statute and the ‘Regulations on Church Property’.

19. The use of candles and other church items purchased or produced outside the Church shall not be allowed.

XVIII. The alterations to the present Statute

1. The present Statute shall be in force for the whole Russian Orthodox Church.

2. The Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church adopted by the Local Council on 8 June 1988 with the amendments made by the Bishops’ Council of 1990 and the Bishops’ Council of 1994 shall lose its validity from the date of the adoption of the present Statute.

3. The right to make amendments to the present Statute shall belong to the Bishops’ Council.

[John Haluska]

As a “caveat” and more importantly, a request for forgiveness, I do not know who they are, or if there are any, Hierarchs, Clergy on/in/looking at this forum.

I mean absolutely NO disrespect or any such thing. NONE AT ALL! Actually you are prayed for very much. It is just that there are many, many questions which I personally believe either have not been “asked”, nor have answers been given which are “truthful”, from Moscow.

I do NOT, nor have I EVER trusted Moscow. Everyone who knows me, knows that. Referring to the "Moscow patriarchhate", specifically:

“They are a sham and a vast bluff.”

Also, as anyone who knows me, or the individuals in this forum are considered, I am NOT a politician, nor have I the prerequisite “tact” required by diplomats. Then again, I prefer honesty above “couching” thoughts, and their subsequent “words”. If “that” is offensive, please pray to God for me to give me wisdom, as I already ask Him.

Also, regarding the post of another individual regarding this same article I referenced…

“My apologies. Had I known, I would not have prefaced my comments with the article.”

Then again…topic wise…I believe it is a very important one. To wit, some questions will follow. They will be “hard” ones, and may “appear” without love…but they are very real ones and I am SURE they have been addressed by our Hierarchs. It is just that the laity are not aware of the decisions and as a result questions (at least with me) arise regarding many, many points (hidden) in the union process.

The immediately following quote from a topic referencing the matter of “property” is very well stated.

“I tend to agree with Archbishop Mark, that the MP should work harder to hide their true character. If people start to realize what this is all about (and I hope its not property rights), then there could be trouble with the "negotiations".

“…The MP should work harder to hide their true character…”

Interesting. A question arises,

“How many truths are there?”

There is but one Truth, and there is ONLY one truth to anything.

Regarding the above comment, is Moscow hiding something? Did their propaganda machine let some things “slip” that have come back to haunt them? The perfidious “act” of the expulsion of monks and nuns from Jericho and Hebron, then the forced takeover of those properties (HOLY SITES!) by the PLO (Moscow) very clearly show who controls what. Also, meaning no disrespect, and "if" it is within my "right" to say so, "I too, agree with Vladyka Mark."

Hence, why was this “act” done? What is the truth to this question? NOT the “spin doctor” “truth”, rather the unmitigated, absolute truth. Alas, this will never be known. Shame.

Question: Will Moscow “give back” what was stolen, or relinquish these properties to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? The Patriarch of Constantinople has done and is doing the EXACT same thing to the Holy Fathers of Esphigmenou Monastery-albeit “quietly”.

Property…what is “property”?

It is usually material in nature, as a referenced aspect, such as a church, a monastery, a plot of land, and a house and on and on. What comprises “property”? Water, sand, stone, wood, etc. ‘comprise’ “property”. All building components come from the earth, that very same earth which God created for EVERYONE.

Now…not being able to ask the questions which were (I hope) have already been asked and answered WITH THE TRUTH,

“What will happen to the physical “properties” which are part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? I mean the Cathedrals (Synod headquarters), the Monasteries (Holy Trinity), the Churches (a “fine line” topic) and ALL monies?”

(“Pardon e moi? Who died and left you king to dare to ask such questions?”)

I am a layman who has questions. None have been allowed to be asked, nor have they been answered elsewhere. I will ask them and, maybe, when “word” of them reaches the proper individuals, maybe, just maybe, if they haven’t been addressed.

Now they are asked.

From what I gather, legally, there are two basic scenarios regarding churches physical. They are:

1. The church, monastery, cathedral, whatever along with its monies and appurtenances belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia…EVERYTHING. As an example, Holy Trinity Monastery belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

2. On the other hand, there are churches; I am not sure about cathedrals or monasteries that are “congregational” (I am not sure if that is the correct word-where are the lawyers?). That means, very simply, the parishes are part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, BUT, and it’s a big BUT, these parishes are in control of ALL their own physical “properties” as well as finances, etc. They own everything themselves.

There are very BIG differences between the above two scenarios.

In the first scenario, upon final completion (in 12-18 months as per a Novosti article) the “union” will take place. As I have copied, many times, the “Statute of the Russian Orthodox Church” states (in painstakingly, minutiae detail-much like a real estate contract, or just a plain old contract) “...Anyone who “voluntarily” ‘joins’ the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow HAS NEVER BEEN, IS NOT, NOR WILL IT EVER BE The Russian Orthodox Church) relinquishes ALL its properties, monies, etc. to them.

It is available for anyone and everyone to read.

That means, very simply, when the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia “joins” with Moscow, IT BECOMES ONE WITH MOSCOW, and defacto relinquishes everything to them. It is either that, or Moscow MUST, HAS TO amend, change, make it plausible that is indeed gives (“that” word is TOTALLY inappropriate as Moscow does NOT “now” own any of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia’s property-but would like to. It “should” be “leaves”) its “government” and ALL physical aspects (quote: “the Patriarch (Alexsei) offered the status of autonomy to the Church Abroad if it agreed.” *) remain in tact and, in perpetuam, reside with and, forever belong to, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

But…

At the instant of “final union”, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia forever ceases to exist as an entity, as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and IMMEDIATELY “is” the Russian Orthodox Church. At that point in time, it ceases to exist. That has to become a reality, as joining precludes any form of “separation”, does it not?

Besides, if, according to the present mantra “Moscow is the so-called “mother church” (which it MOST DEFINITELY is NOT the “mother” of anything-an extremely well written, phrased description of the fallacy of this scenario has been written by Bishop Daniel.)

Comment:

The Russian Orthodox Church WAS, IS, and EVER SHALL BE comprised of the following:

1. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the free “part of” the Russian Orthodox Church.

2. The much suffering Catacomb Church (yes, it still is in existence), is a “part of” the Russian Orthodox Church.

AND, as in ALSO,

1. “…The ailing “part of” the Russian Orthodox Church…”...

specifically the "Moscow patriarchate", whose history being “clouded”, shall we say (the truth notwithstanding) or as numerous hierarchs, clergymen and laity have referred to it as #3 above.

In essence, either the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, upon union (12-18 months) with Moscow automatically relinquishes EVERYTHING it now owns to Moscow, when it becomes the “Russian Orthodox Church”…or… Moscow totally re-writes its “Property” section of the “Statute” to reflect the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia retains EVERYTHING it now owns, possesses…including Holy Trinity Monastery, ALL Holy Sites throughout the world, especially the Holy Land and ALL other appurtenances.

To me? This will happen when I can step outside right now into the frigid, zero degree weather, and “see” the sunshine, and it is in the 80’s.

Maybe in Arizona...

...Then again, Motovilov and Saint Seraphim were totally covered with snow, and were warm...

Just questions…

“My apologies for asking, but then again, I am just writing to anyone who will listen. That immediately represents “ordinary people” like me (sorry, don’t mean to offend anyone when I say “like me”), I don’t know “who” part of this forum, except for one individual whom I know, respect and love dearly, and pray for him and everyone he is associated with, always."

John

• Pg 48, Vol. 42, No. 1, Jan – Feb. 1992, “THE CHURCH IN 1991”, ORTHODOX LIFE, Published by bi-monthly by Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, 13361-0036; (very last sentence portion on this page).

Ps
Again, my apologies if I have I have offended ANYONE.
j

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

“I tend to agree with Archbishop Mark, that the MP should work harder to hide their true character. If people start to realize what this is all about (and I hope its not property rights), then there could be trouble with the "negotiations".

“…The MP should work harder to hide their true character…”

Interesting. A question arises,

“How many truths are there?”

There is but one Truth, and there is ONLY one truth to anything.

Regarding the above comment, is Moscow hiding something? Did their propaganda machine let some things “slip” that have come back to haunt them? The perfidious “act” of the expulsion of monks and nuns from Jericho and Hebron, then the forced takeover of those properties (HOLY SITES!) by the PLO (Moscow) very clearly show who controls what. Also, meaning no disrespect, and "if" it is within my "right" to say so, "I too, agree with Vladyka Mark."

Of course I'm sure you realize I was saying that factiously.

On the one hand I can understand how the MP and Putin would thank the Palestinian Authority for their cooperation – I mean, it is more about securing future cooperation with political gestures than a real heartfelt “boy, we sure got them guys”.

For me it is more about getting a good whiff of the past when the MP sure looked and smelled like it was the ROCOR’s enemy; and in the absence of any real repentance should still be thought of as having the same stripes and only different tactics. The MP hasn’t changed a bit, the only change has been with the ROCOR.

[John Haluska]

Of course I'm sure you realize I was saying that factiously.

On the one hand I can understand how the MP and Putin would thank the Palestinian Authority for their cooperation – I mean, it is more about securing future cooperation with political gestures than a real heartfelt “boy, we sure got them guys”.

For me it is more about getting a good whiff of the past when the MP sure looked and smelled like it was the ROCOR’s enemy; and in the absence of any real repentance should still be thought of as having the same stripes and only different tactics. The MP hasn’t changed a bit, the only change has been with the ROCOR.

Of course I understand.

It is very unsettling, to say the least, to read materiel from Russian sites, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia sites, periodicals and such and if one cares to, or even has them. Read these articles from the 50s on up until the very early 1990s.

At best, they are totally against Moscow. Absolutely nothing is said with hatred, yet the tenor of some of the articles is “strained” to terse. The articles are extremely factual, well written and to the point. They were written by Hierarchs, clergy and laymen and to a man, they were anti-Moscow.

One salient book was “THE CANONICAL AND LEGAL POSITION OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE”, written by then Protopresbyter George Grabbe, The Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem, 1971, who later became Bishop Gregory (of Blessed memory!). I used the final portion of his sentence in this book in my previous post, except I said “sham” as opposed to “fiction”. Then again, “sham” and “fiction” have the same meaning.

Another book is “IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES”, Holt Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, 1949.

Basically it deals with the property of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Transfiguration of Our Lord, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. Rev. A. Lisen, et al, Defendants.

A salient quote is from pg. 1:

“This is an action for declaratory relief and injunction, involving a determination of the rights of two opposing factions of the membership of the Holy Transfiguration parish and church in Los Angeles, to the control and use of the property of the parish. (It will be referred to herein as “Transfiguration Parish” for the sake of brevity). It is composed of adherents to the Russian Orthodox faith and it is a constituent parent of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. (The latter will be referred to as “The Church” for the sake of brevity.) Counsel assert that this is a test case for determining the status of all the parishes, their property and their members, located in the United States, who do not recognize the authority of the present Patriarch in Moscow and his Holy Synod.”

Holy Transfiguration won.

I am far from being anyone who knows the history of my Church. I love to read, and unfortunately (I guess) probably 90-95% of what I have read (especially from Synod sources-pre 1990 or so) has been, shall we say, in present terms, “negative” to Moscow.

About 24 years ago I entered the anteroom of my Ukrainian Seminary and noticed a picture of the Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. They were in a semi-circle. I looked at them and saw Holy Russia, or at least what I had been told was Holy Russia. I was taken by their meekness. I was then, and am now Ukrainian. That will NEVER change! I asked my friend, a deacon, “Father, who are these people? He said, “They are the Zarobezhny.” I said, “Are they Orthodox?” He said,

“Johnny…if anyone on the face of this earth is Orthodox, THEY ARE!”

This was from a devout Ukrainian Deacon! I started asking questions of others and was told, “Shut up! Do not ask these questions.”

To this day I thank God for my friend, that Ukrainian Deacon!

Throughout my life I have NEVER trusted Moscow. NEVER! I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and its perfunctory “duck and cover drills”.

I was terrified, as was the rest of the United States. I used to think (as we were about ½ mile from an Air Force plant that was scheduled to be nuked, that…hey if a nuke hit the plant we would be toast, so why get under my desk?

No one has yet to comment on a past post regarding the establishment of a Moscow patriarchal church in Cuba. Read the attending hierarch’s comments and tell me they weren’t “text-book” ‘60s Communist verbiage. They were.

All of “this” has put me to an early grave. Yet, God is in charge and whatever happens will be. Up until now I am still in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, but after reading the “Novosti” article I feel even more betrayed.

It references a “schedule” for union.

That is the first time I have heard of any “schedule” being set by either party. At least it is the first time it has been referenced as such.

The MP was built, conjured on lies. That much is indisputable, accurate, down to the day, maybe minute fact and history. It cannot be changed. Then again, what was the primary prerequisite of the Bolsheviks or Communists? It was lies. The Communists were, and still are, masters of lies. As I look at this paper (Word program) I see a white background and black text. The Communist’s job was to get me to see a black background with white letters. Some succumbed to that. I haven’t…yet.

I had a friend of mine and his family over for dinner after Church one day. He is RUSSIAN. We talked and the topic of the Army came up. I told him of my meeting a Russian survey party (I was a Sgt with my own squad) who was about 9 1/2 kilometers into the "10K ZONE" between Germany and Czekoslovakia.

The "10K ZONE" was/is a "no-man's land". I looked, couldn't believe my eyes, then saw the magazined (loaded) AK-47s. I said something to him in Ukrainian, and he stopped. We looked at each other. I was terrified as were my men. He smiled, and I smiled. He turned around and went back. I sat down and trembled. I was debriefed later.

Anyway, my friend looked at me (he was recruited by the K.G.B. but refused) and said, "You know Johnny...If we met on the battlefield I would have had to kill you." Without hesitation, I said, "And I would have to kill you, hopefully first!" We looked at each other for a while, then laughed.

I do not trust Moscow.

I will not leave the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia!

I told myself that on 3 July 1982.

I am an Orthodox Christian, and am part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

I venerate her Saints, both old and new, and pray to them.

I am very fortunate.

When the “end” comes……

“…The MP hasn’t changed a bit…”

Amen.

John

[Justin Kissel]

John

I am a layman who has questions. None have been allowed to be asked, nor have they been answered elsewhere.

It is my understanding that you can ask them whenever you meet a bishop. Have you tried the telephone, email, mail, or visiting Jordanville or NYC? Ania mentioned last year that Met. Laurus was spoken to quite rudely and upbraided at one parish he went to; apparently people weren't prevented from asking questions. Also, it is my understanding that at Nyack each parish had a delegation and were allowed to bring up concerns. And I assume question asking would be the whole point of the future clergy-laity conference.

Whenever ROCOR does release information, people tend to jump all over it looking for the worst they can find in it (or read into it), either speculating or outright lying about it. So if they don't release information, people complain; and if they do release information, people complain louder. I don't blame them for being hesitant.

[John Haluska]

Justin,

It is my understanding that you can ask them whenever you meet a bishop.

That being the case, referencing my questions, at what point in a happenstance meeting of a bishop would an answer be given to these questions? You do realize that this is a “touchy”, shall we say, topic, do you not? You do realize that “property” means ALL property, do you not? You do realize that the in depth, itemized “form” issued to ALL Synod parishes a couple years ago detailing EVERY minute appurtenance of said parish has been issued? Why?

Father Victor Potapov wrote an exceptional work (as all his works are exceptional) on the Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. Guess who will end up owning Eleon, and all the other Holy Sites in the Holy Land? When one voluntarily becomes part of another something, it takes on the mores, looks, thought processes of the other, does it not? When one travels to another country, do they not try to “fit in” as a native?

I have made a statement, “I do not trust Moscow.” Some may agree with it, some may find it offensive, but that is my statement and I stand by it, for my own reasons which I have delineated, just a few.

Do you trust Moscow? How does one approach a bishop and say (other than the obvious and just do it), “Vladyka, do you trust Moscow? What are you going to do when the union is complete, and Moscow, being the “Russian Orthodox Church” says, “We are taking over Eleon and ALL the Holy Sites in the Holy Land, as well as all your monasteries and their dependencies.”? Does one dare ask a bishop that question? I wouldn’t, yet is it not an extremely critical one?

What about the myriad other questions…What happens to the Parishes who came over from the OCA because they REFUSED to bow down and submit to the thrice anathematized “new calendar”? Eventually, when ‘world orthodoxy” has consummated Moscow will have services with the “new calendarists” will it not?

What about Ecumenism? There have been many articles posted here, recently, which clearly show Moscow’s propensity towards non-extrication from the Ecumenism venue, do they not? How does one brooch that topic, with facts, in a brief meeting with a bishop?

How about Segianism? The present-day mantra is now “Well, he did it under duress.” Was Metropolitan Cyrill of Kazan martyred “under duress”? How does one say, “Look at all the hierarchs who were against, some VERY outspoken, Sergius and his infamous “declaration”, “Vladyka, all these new martyrs were against what Metropolitan Sergius did. How can we unite with them if they do not totally renounce Sergius and his “declaration”? This HAS NOT been done, has it?

How does one say, in a brief meeting of a bishop, “Vladyka, regarding the Resolutions put forth at the 50th Jubilee Anniversary in Canada of the formation of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, are these resolutions still in effect, or were they just “words”?

The above, immediate, and others are VERY “tough” questions, and I dare say that each would require more than a cursory, after Sunday Divine Liturgy on the way to trapeza answer. Besides, everyone of them, and many more, should be asked by Hierarchs and Clergy, NOT laymen. Then, the answers should be made public, TO ALL so that NO “questions” would remain. Or, am I mistaken? How many hierarchs, clergy and laymen were at the 50th Jubilee? What were the factors which led to the resolutions, one of which VERY CLEARLY and PRECISELY delineates Pimen’s non-status a patriarch. I am just stating a fact written by others. If I am wrong, then what about the hierarchs who adopted this resolution? Are they wrong also?

That would bring us to “sobornost”, or in English, “conciliar”. One cannot adequately translate “sobornost”, as it deals with something that transcends delineation. My thoughts are, it represents a “consensus” of the hierarchs present. That “consensus” may NOT, and I am sure that it has NOT at times, represented a 100% agreement on anything. That being the case, on any given issue that does not attain a 100% individual agreement, how does it represent a 100% on paper agreement with the signatures of all bishops?

I do NOT understand “sobornost” as a spiritually versed individual does. I apologize for that, as I am not able to grasp that concept.

Have you tried the telephone, email, mail, or visiting Jordanville or NYC?

Email a bishop? Please, decorum should preclude that. Phone? Which bishop do you know would spend hours on the phone answering questions? Visit? After all “this” started, “camps” were established. That is a fact. Along with these “camps”, anyone associate with one particular parish of Priest was by default linked to it or him and “ostracized” (in small letters as opposed to big). Oh yes, the phone? When was the last time you received a semi-polite answer when someone picked up the phone at the Monastery? Does that not automatically set the “tone”?

Ania mentioned last year that Met. Laurus was spoken to quite rudely and upbraided at one parish he went to;

I could be shot, BUT, to me, “that” is despicable! One does not berate any bishop or clergyman for that matter, ESPECIALLY in public! NEVER! He is a Bishop! A successor to the Apostles! The CANON referring to this is quite specific and scary. Besides, whether I agree with my bishop or not, I still love him, as long as he is my bishop. Here…DECORUM, let alone simple respect, should be the tone used. I see, and have done, too much shouting. Is that from God? Agree or not, like an individual once said, “…bring it up for a vote…” . I was told once, “Whether you agree or not, like the person or not, you must ALWAYS pray for him!” I do. For stating that, I could be shot, or at the very least be considered “a non entity”.

Apparently people weren't prevented from asking questions. Also, it is my understanding that at Nyack each parish had a delegation and were allowed to bring up concerns.

Where does the most positive effect take place in a question and answer session? Is it a one-on-one, or a group discussion? People are fortunate to have been able to express their concerns FROM THE GIT GO; some have not. That is most unfortunate.

Also, in the usage of this “medium”, how many issues, even issues that have presented which are consider VERY salient, have been quashed by ROCOR “spin-doctors”? Hmmm? If one cannot express a thought here, then where can one express it, and then, ostensibly then, receive something other than a “canned, mantraish” spin-doctor response?

And I assume question asking would be the whole point of the future clergy-laity conference.

And well “it should be”. But…will it be? I have mentioned a “Novosti” article numerous times. It is very poorly written, grammatically and context-wise, but the underlying factors are crucial. Specifically, whenever the topic of a “schedule” has been broached, it is always quashed as being “no, that is not the case.” Does not the ‘word’ schedule denote an end product of sorts. Couple that with a time frame of “12-18 months”, and that ‘word’ “schedule “ now takes on a new meaning. It is either stating, “Yes, there is a “schedule” for final consummation”, or it means someone is way off track. How does one reconcile that as an “individual” question? Would that not be considered a question for every person in The Russian Orthodox Church outside if Russia to be made aware of its answer?

Whenever ROCOR does release information, people tend to jump all over it looking for the worst they can find in it (or read into it), either speculating or outright lying about it. So if they don't release information, people complain; and if they do release information, people complain louder.

I have always stated, “Openness and honesty in anything, from its beginning, is always the best policy.” Then again, that’s “just me”. Clandestinely produced material produces more questions, and bad circumstances, than answers.

Besides, “if” there is a “schedule” of between 12-18 months, why even have a sobor where this union will be discussed? Nothing will change, will it? It means great expense for most every parish, to send a Priest and another to it. ALL, as EVERYONE of these and numerous questions “should have been” posed. Were they? I do not know, do you, or does anyone else?

This all has been a textbook example of Goal Oriented Management. It has been executed flawlessly. Unfortunately, the Church is NOT an entity that can be considered to be “governed” like a country. The Latins do that already.

Will the Holy Land sites eventually “go” to Moscow? Their very own “Statute” says they will. That is a basic “black and white” document “governing” them. Interesting, it takes a book to delineate everything, and each of us has a conscience which should tell us what to and not to do. They need a book.

I don't blame them for being hesitant.

That is exactly what I am trying to say.

I apologize for my brevity, but you asked, and I responded as best I could. To those who do not agree with me, I can accept that.

When all of this is completed, and either there is a concelebration or the pronouncement of Alexei as patriarch during the Liturgy, somewhere, there will be a Priest who does not “go along” with this. If I can, I will travel to his parish. If not, that’s why we have Prayer Books. Besides, others are DIRECT descendants of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which I shall not leave.

My apologies to all who take offense to this.

John

[TomS]

John,

Until you have fully worked out your salvation, I would suggest that you not be so focused on real estate.