Hi, Im ROCOR and since ive been on this site, many people are talking about schisms in ROCOR? i dont know why. why are there so many separations? Well i know MP is an obvious reason but why the others? (Specifically ROCOR) ROCOR's one of the traditional ones.
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
Moderator: Mark Templet
-
尼古拉前执事
- Archon
- Posts: 5126
- Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
- Faith: Eastern Orthodox
- Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
- Location: United States of America
- Contact:
ROCOR/ROCA, ROAC, ROCiE, HOCNA, ROC, TOC, SOC, JP, RAOC, etc
Valentina, let me try to simply explain why.
HOCNA split from ROCOR because the head of the monastery that it centers upon was being investigated for sexually abusing boys. I do not know their internal explanation.
ROAC left ROCOR when ROCOR came into official communion with the TOC. More joined them when ROCOR went into official communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Also at issue was ROCOR's management of churches within Russia, then called the Free Orthodox Church of Russia.
ROCiE left because our previous Metropolitan, Vitaly stepped down and got mad at the Synod when they let his secretart go. Met. Vitaly is sick and forces that were anti-Metropolitan Laurus got Met. Vitaly to uncanonically renounce his retirement and start ROCiE. These people were also fearful of a ROCOR/MP reunion.
I hope that helps! If you have any further questions feel free to ask, others might be able to tell you more in detail.
From ROAC's Metropolitan Valentine
What were the reasons for your breakup with the ROCOR in 1995?
There were two main reasons. The first - the outrageous disorganization introduced into the life of the Russian Church by controversial decisions of the ROCOR Synod. It created the danger that the True Church simply would cease to exist in Russia and would remain only in the catacombs. Secondly - was the apostasy from Orthodoxy, from the uncompromising relationship toward the heresies of Ecumenism and Sergianism. Generally speaking, the controversial decisions of the Synod were the reason for this apostasy. The Synod didn't clearly know what to do in Russia: should they minister to building up and developing of their dioceses and parishes, or have negotiations with the MP. So it wavered from one side to the other.
I have tried many times to warn my brother bishops of the destructiveness of what they were doing. The very wise elder Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) also sounded the alarm regarding the situation, but we were no only not heard, but showered with slander. Due to slander of "Pamyat" ("Memory," a political organization) I was dismissed from the cathedral, suspended from serving and, after my departure from the ROCOR, in violation of numerous church canons "dismissed from the ranks". I was making the same choice as in 1990: to submit to all of this, accept untruth and in this manner to betray my flock, which at that time was not in Suzdal alone, but all over Russia - or to fulfill my duty as a bishop even if this meant formal administrative loyalty had to be disregarded. I swore to be a bishop to the Church and my duty before the Church and my flock was most important. The more so since the activity of the ROCOR was heading toward curtailing ecclesiastical life in Russia and was harming our dioceses and parishes. Therefore we, the bishops of one mind in Russia, have severed our submission to the ROCOR.
Why in 1995 you were against the rapprochement of ROCOR and ROC?
Because there is no reason for such a rapprochement. The Moscow Patriarchate is not the true Church. She ceased to be so when she accepted the heresies of Sergianism and Ecumenism, and agreed to actually apostatize from Christ. And she is only deceiving her faithful, pretending to be the True Church. The Church Abroad, on the contrary, for decades was famous for her stand in the Truth, no compromises regarding any kind of heresies and lies. What would a rapprochement of the ROCOR and MP require? Either a change of mind by the hierarchs of the MP, their request to those who preserved the Truth for instruction and teaching. Such a rapprochement we would honor. Or the apostasy of the Church Abroad from her steadfast position. This we consider to be betrayal. The first one has not happened, but the second has happened. And I, as a bishop whose duty is to watch over the Truth, in no way could support such a one-sided rapprochement.
As the events that followed showed, the "rapprochement" of ROCOR and the MP means not the cleansing of the Patriarchate, but the total capitulation of the Church Abroad, the denial of own ideals and a readiness to be swallowed up by the MP. Contemporary hierarchs of the Church Abroad honestly admit that they are afraid to remain in the minority, they are overwhelmed by the splendor of "the ecclesiastical revival" in Russia, the cathedral of Christ the Savior, and they want to participate in all of this. But I believe that over the last decade the MP had gotten even worse. Before, her heresies and sins could be justified by the persecution of the godless government. But now that she is free to cleanse herself of all of it of her own free will she has no conscious intention of doing this. The latter lie is worse than the first.
How do you feel now about the rapprochement of ROCOR and the ROC?
At present this is the rapprochement not of churches, not of the faithful, but of the Synod's hierarchical bureaucrats. Actually a-leadership revolution in the ROCORites happened. A-faction of the bishops, who for many years were aspiring to power, have done all they could so that the legacy of their First Hierarchs Metropolitans Anthony, Anastassy and St. Philaret (+ 1985) be forgotten; that there would happen a rupture with the Russian bishops, among whom I was one. At present they have overcome the very last obstacle in the person of the aged Metropolitan Vitaly. He made many mistakes, but in general his mind was always Orthodox and this was not convenient. Now they openly laugh at him, call him "insane" and in this manner try to explain his desire to preserve strict Orthodoxy. Indeed, for the contemporary world, which the ROCOR bishops want to become an organic part of, the preservation of Orthodoxy is a kind of being "a fool for Christ's sake".
The present leaders of the ROCOR are basically "a new generation" of church bureaucrats, void of any clear ecclesiastical, religious views. Therefore, for them it is natural to blend into one structure with the same kind of bureaucrats from the MP. And the latter, in their turn, are interested in appropriating the heritage of the Church Abroad, to appreciate not only the church buildings, but also the right to the name, the relics of the saints so that this great and glorious name from the past would no longer "tempt" the flock of the MP by unmasking her untruths and the apostasy of her hierarchs. MP would like to have the right to say: "St. John of Shanghai - he is ours...And even Metropolitan Philaret, who didn't consider us to be a Church, look, he is now ours, not yours any more". And this is by people who are far from the Spirit of Truth. To them it seems that it is enough to switch the tags and omit from the books "the wrong words" in order to believe the matter is settled. But something like this will not happen. The Church of Christ cannot be conquered and after the destruction of the ROCOR the Lord will create a new vessel for the preservation of His Grace.
I read somewhere that people lied about Met. Vitaly and said that he reannounced his retirement. He made a new group though? I'm confused. Also are Serbian, TOC and Jeraseleum Patriarch in communion with the MP? So many legal issues 
ROCOR is right. The Vitalybahn (ROCiE) are taking advantage of a sick man sadly. Yes the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Jerusalem Patriarchate are in communion with all of World Orthodoxy including the Moscow Patriarchate. The people that had major issues with this went to ROAC like our Julianna posted above.