Appeal to the hierarchs, clergy and faithful of ROCOR

[Priest Siluan]

George:

What church do you belong? I thought that you belong to the Kyprianites (am I right or not?), do they think now that MP is not Ecumenist?

[George Australia]

Answer to Question 1) The Great Church (according to the Holy Canons).
Answer to Question 2) You are wrong (always seem to back the wrong horse, don't you?)
Answer to question 3) Yes, but so what? Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado also thinks so. And he also calls himself "Genuine Orthodox", "True Orthodox" and "Traditionalist Orthodox"- But does any of this make him Orthodox? Or Canonical? Or is he in reality just another schismatic?

All that aside, I wonder if you even bothered to read what the Russian Orthodox delegation to the WCC had to say as I posted in this thread here and cited from this website: http://www.eni.ch/assembly/0557.html which could hardly be considered biased, since it is the website of "Ecumenical News International"......I doubt you had read it, because your questions are completely unrelated to any of this thread. And why am I not surprised?
Warning: Prejudiced responses based on misinformation and sounding like they come from an unthinking automaton will henceforth be ignored.

[George Australia]

Address of the Synod of Bishops to the God-loving Flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
September 7th 2006
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/syn ... aniye.html
Dear in the Lord Fathers, Brothers and Sisters!

For 90 years now, the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia have existed on all continents, along with monasteries, publishing houses and parishes. Everything that signifies church life: parish councils, sisterhoods, schools, youth groups, general parish meetings, magnificent choirs, altar boys, etc. gathered around them. All this arose as diocesan conferences and Church Councils convened, which regulated all of church life. Thus, through the chaos of the persecution of the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox people gathered to stand around their Hierarchy, which found itself abroad, and strove to serve towards the emancipation and rebirth of their people on the foundation of the Orthodox Faith.

Within the boundaries of Russia, persecution took the form of the absolute destruction of faith in Christ. Much was destroyed, many suffered. But the Lord did not permit the disappearance of the Church in our Homeland. In those places where ancient churches survived, people are once again gaining spiritual nourishment. That which was destroyed is being rebuilt. Church life is rising from the ashes. Archpastors, clergymen and believers are trying to rebuild Orthodox Russia anew. This process of renascence requires effort and the strength of will, since it is necessary to conduct spiritual educational work with the descendants of the generations of godless violence which touched absolutely every person without exception. Many obstacles remain on this path, but we see that these obstacles, and the remnants of Soviet times, are gradually being overcome.

The day has arrived when we must seek the reestablishment of communion with the wellspring of our own traditions. For there are two wills at work—one being that of those Russians who are children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, prepared in every way to cooperate in the reestablishment of church life and development of the spirituality of the people, and the other is from our brethren and sisters in Russia, who labor towards her rebirth and extend their hand to us.

Positive changes in the church life of our Homeland spurred the Council of Bishops of October 2000 to establish a Committee on the unity of the Russian Church and to bless the organization of scholarly conferences on church history with the participation of the members of our Church and representatives of the Church in Russia. These conferences were held in 2001 and 2002. Then, in December 2003, a Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate was formed. At the same time, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to create a similar Commission on dialog with our Church. This bore witness to the earnest and good-willed effort of both parts of the Russian Orthodox Church to make sense of the tragedy of our common history, so that we "may discuss peacefully… whatever question there is which separates your communion from us," as we read in Canon 92 (103) of the Council of Carthage, which called upon the flock to trust their Hierarchy, which possessed the right to heal the divisions between the Orthodox and the Donatists.

The "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia," the by-laws under which our Church lives, demand that we regularize the situation of the Local Russian Church. It is important to note that a commission to revise the "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia" was established before the year 2000.

This shows that even then it was apparent that our "Regulations" are in need of amendment. Since 2000, new possibilities emerged in this regard. Now, in connection with the adoption of the "Act on Canonical Communion," our by-laws can be reexamined, taking into account new possibilities.

Still, it is necessary to point out that we are not discussing the "self-abolishment" of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Our Church will exist as before, as attested to by the first paragraph of the "Act on Canonical Communion:" "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical bodies that took shape through history, remains an indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church." These words in the "Act" attest to the recognition on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate of our historical path and of the living bond between the entire Local Russian Orthodox Church and its part abroad, which always existed and which we never denied. This historical document will reestablish the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, through this mutual act acknowledging the lawful status of the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia. Each side, preserving its identity as a Church, will continue to exist in full legality and independence, but now recognizing the other side and declaring the unity of the Russian Church. For this reason, this means the reconciliation and mutual recognition of each other while yet preserving our administrative self-governance, for we understand the needs of our clergy and of our flock better than they understand them in Moscow.

The IV All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops that followed approved the steps towards reestablishing unity already taken by our Hierarchy, and blessed its continued progress.

The above-mentioned "Act" has been approved and confirmed by the Synod of Bishops, but it will be finally adopted when it is signed by the Primates of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. Working out the details of this signing, and also the Rite of the establishment of canonical communion has been assigned to the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate. It is expected that it will embark on this task jointly with the Commission on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at their next meeting. Then, the results of this meeting will be considered at the next session of the Synod of Bishops, which will be held in December of this year.

Dear in the Lord fathers, brothers and sisters! We do not intend to depart from our positions of principle, in particular with regard to the ecumenical movement. We intend to continue to firmly speak out in condemnation of the so-called "branch theory" and of joint prayer with heretics, which is emphasized in our anathema of ecumenism adopted by the Council of Bishops of 1983. This is reflected in the documents of the church Commissions confirmed by both Holy Synods and published in the official publications of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. From this we see that in the Moscow Patriarchate, our attitude towards the heresy of ecumenism has long ago been absorbed. That is why we are not compromising the inherited principles which have always guided us. Still, we were always open to dialog with everyone, but on the condition that this be done without any hindrance to Orthodox teaching. In the decisions of the Councils of Bishops we always held fast to the ecclesiology of moderation, and never rejected the presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate or in other Local Churches.

We will continue to maintain the spirit of our great fathers, the founders of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, following their legacy and the historical path of our Church. To carry this great inheritance to Russia is the mission we strive to fulfill.

We will always remember that only in the Kingdom of Heaven will everything be perfect and good, that in the Church on earth we will perpetually experience difficulties caused by human passions, failings, temptations and sins, which must be overcome by means of beneficial fraternal dialog and cooperation, condescension, understanding and a Christian attitude towards each other, as Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: "correct such a one in the spirit of meekness" (Galatians 6:1).

In conclusion, let us remember Schema-Archimandrite Amvrossy (Kurganov) of blessed memory, the Abbot of Vvedensky Milkovo Monastery in Serbia, whence came several bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, since departed. The eminent church figure of the Russian diaspora, P.S. Lopukhin, writing on the Christian death of Fr Amvrossy, said: "I preserve in my memory this image of a man, weeping in joy on his death bed for Divine unity." Blessed Metropolitan Anthony said of Fr Amvrossy that in spirit he was closer to him than anyone.

May God grant all of us to experience this feeling of "spiritual joy in Divine unity," leading us to the successful conclusion of the process of reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church.

May the Lord help us! Amen.

• LAURUS,
  Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
  First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

• Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

• Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

• Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

• Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

• Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

[Frelias]

I think as one reads the letter below written by Prot. Alexander Lebedeff, one can easily see the ridiculous “logic” of his argument. I continue to be amazed by so many who seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of both the MP and ROCOR in their ecumenistic behavior of the past years.

Nevertheless, if one will truthfully investigate the many reports of the persecutions of the ROAC clergy and parishioners -- does this not raise a flag one one’s mind? For after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, clearly ROCOR began (little by little) down a path radically different than in the days of Metropolitan Philaret.

Priest Elias

July 28, 2006

Fr. Alexander Lebedeff on the MP, the ROCOR and Ecumenism

Filed under: Ecclesiastical at 2:48 am
Posted on the Orthodox Jurisdictions forum.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodoxj ... sage/13571

In discussions regarding the MP and Ecumenism, many seem to be under the impression that the MP was always involved in ecumenism, and that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was always staunchly against ecumenism and participation in the WCC.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, when the World Council of Churches was officially founded in 1948, the Moscow Patriarchate convened a Pan-Orthodox Council that categorically rejected ecumenism and stated that participation in the WCC was incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology.

At that time, the ROCOR was actively involved with ecumenism, as it had been since the 1920s, and during the entire time of the tenure of Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy.

The ROCOR was a Charter Member of the original founding organization–the precursor of the WCC and to this day one of its key elements: The Committee on Faith and Order.

The ROCOR Sobors of Bishops blessed participation by bishops and clergy representatives at all of the meetings of the Faith and Order Commssion.

Even as late as 1951, the ROCOR sponsored a European sub-Assembly of the WCC, held in Baden-Baden. You can see pictures of this assembly, with ROCOR Archbishop Benedict and Bishop Alexander surrounded by the usual WCC melange of Copts, Armenians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. in the official history of the ROCOR, published during the time of Metropolitan Philaret in 1968 (the two-volume Sollogub opus).

There you can also see pictures of Ecumenical meetings with Metropolitan Anthony participating in Serbia–especially meetings with Anglicans. One can see the bishops of the ROCOR in ecumenical dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican bishops.

Recently, someone claimed that there was an Ukaz of the ROCOR in 1953 banning all contact with the World Council of Churches.

Why then do I have before me the Report to the Council of Bishops by Protopriest George Grabbe, describing in detail his participation in the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in 1954? He was officially an observer, but was certainly officially representing the Church Abroad.

And why is no one talking about the official delegation of the ROCOR to the Second Vatican Council in Rome, at the invitation of Pope John XXIII?

This was an official delegation, headed by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), Protopriests Igor Troyanoff and Alexander Troubnikoff– with official Observer status.

They participated in all of the major “official” events, such as the opening ceremonies in St. Peter’s Cathedral, where they processed as part of the Orthodox church representatives, and the official receptions given to the “Orthodox sister churches” by the Pope.

(This was actually quite interesting, because the Moscow Patriarchate had also been invited, and sent a delegation headed by Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). This was the first occasion where both a ROCOR and an MP delegation participated side by side, representing the Russian Church–which caused quite some interesting issues of protocol–order in the procession, seating at the sessions, receptions and banquets, etc.)

And all of this with the full blessing of the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad under Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret.

Another rarely-mentioned fact in the collaboration of the ROCOR with the World Council of Churches and allied ecumenical organizations is that all of the bishops and clergy of the ROCOR in Germany and Austria received their salaries from the local Church World Service of the WCC–throughout all of the time that Metropolitan Philaret was First Hierarch. This continued virtually to the end of the 1990’s. Our parishes in Germany and Austria were able to exist only because of the very significant subsidies received from the ecumenists– for decades.

One should also mention that the majority of members of the ROCOR who emigrated to the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries from “Displaced Persons” camps in Germany and Austria had their travel expenses paid by the ecumenical Church World Service–so most of our older generation of parishioners (and clergy) — are here only because of ecumenical organizations outreach programs.

Cooperation by the ROCOR continues with ecumenical organizations to this day. The Russian Home for the Aged near the Strathfield Cathedral in Sydney, Australia, is operated by the National Council of Churches of Australia in close cooperation with our Diocese of the Church Abroad. If there were no cooperation between the NCCA and the ROCOR, thirty-five elderly ROCOR parishioners would have no home to live in.

So, it is completely false to depict the ROCOR as being historically anti-ecumenical, while condemning the Moscow Patriarchate for participating in the WCC.

It was the Moscow Patriarchate which first condemned, on strict Orthodox ecclesiological grounds, Orthodox participation in ecumenical organizations and specifically, the WCC.

The Moscow Patriarchate joined the WCC only in 1961–when the ROCOR had been involved in it and its precursor throughout all of the previous decades since the 1920’s — and this cooperation continued, especially in the area of having clergy salaries paid in Europe by the WCC until just a few years ago.

Condemning an organization while taking money from it would really be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn’t it?

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

[George Australia]

I think as one reads the letter below written by Prot. Alexander Lebedeff, one can easily see the ridiculous “logic” of his argument.

Well I can't, so could you point it out? Especially explain to me the part that says:
"Even as late as 1951, the ROCOR sponsored a European sub-Assembly of the WCC, held in Baden-Baden. You can see pictures of this assembly, with ROCOR Archbishop Benedict and Bishop Alexander surrounded by the usual WCC melange of Copts, Armenians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. in the official history of the ROCOR, published during the time of Metropolitan Philaret in 1968 (the two-volume Sollogub opus)."
Who exactly is being "illogical" and trying to rewrite history- is it Fr. Alexander or yourself?

I continue to be amazed by so many who seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of both the MP and ROCOR in their ecumenistic behavior of the past years.

They probably don't see it because it doesn't exist. There is no such word as "ecumenistic".

Nevertheless, if one will truthfully investigate the many reports of the persecutions of the ROAC clergy and parishioners

Which ROAC?

For after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, clearly ROCOR began (little by little) down a path radically different than in the days of Metropolitan Philaret.

And you can speak with authority about this because you belong to whom.....? Is it ROAC (Andrei), ROAC (Gregory), ROCOR(Vitaly) or ROCOR (Laurus)? Or is it neither?

[尼古拉前执事]

I only have a minute before I must got to work, so I must make this quick.

George there is only 1 ROAC and you know that. Please do not not try to pretend otherwise. Gregory of Colorado no longer falsely claims to be ROAC.

[George Australia]

Gregory of Colorado no longer falsely claims to be ROAC.

Then who is making these announcements "under the direction of Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado" in the name of ROAC ? : http://www.roacamerica.org/announcements.html