Moderator: Mark Templet
Jean-Serge wrote:GOCTheophan wrote:You know that the St Edward's Brotherhood give Communion to Greek New Calendarists? That the Serbian Patriarchate gives Communion to Roman Catholics and Monophysites?
Theophan.Did you see this? Where, when, who... Do you have proofs?
Sorry Jean-Serge about which? The Serbian Offical Church or the St Edward's Brotherhood?
I learnt about the Serbian Offical Church Communing Roman Catholics from a friend of mine who is an openly false Ecumenist member of them aswell as a lady in our Jurisdiction in Serbia who used to sing in one of the top choirs of the SP.
As regards the St Edward's Brotherhood that is hardly a secret. If you write a nuetral sounding letter (i.e. one that doesnt make you out to be a zealot) to them Im sure they will be open about it.
Theophan.
Michael Astley wrote:Many thanks, Theophan.
I had been under the impression that the idea was for ROCOR to submit to Moscow and then be granted autonomy by the same. From what you have said, it seems as though you have access to the Act already, although as I understand it, it is still under deliberation by the joint commission and Sobors of both jurisdictions. How have you come by it? (Or have I misunderstood?)
Thanks again.
Its been out for a week or maybe two now-
The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, having been formed by historical forces and able to provide its lifesaving service through its dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other religious bodies, is recognized as an inseparable, autonomous part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.
The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is independent in all matters pastoral, educational, administrative, financial, along with property and matters of state, while one canonically with the entire Russian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate.
Its Council of Bishops constitutes the ruling body in all matters spiritual, legal, administrative, and judicial in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and is convened by its Chairman (Hierarch) in accordance with the Status of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
The Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, elected by its Council of Bishops, assumes his position with the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Hierarch’s name will be commemorated in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad after the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia.
The decision to create or dissolve a diocese within the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will be made by its Council of Bishops with the agreement of the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will be chosen by its Bishops Council, or in some cases, by the Synod of Bishops as stipulated in the Status of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. The canonical naming of bishops will be confirmed by the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.
Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will be considered members of the Local Council of the Orthodox Church and will take part in the accepted manner in meetings of the Holy Synod.
The higher instance of church rule for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will be the Local and Bishops Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose decisions are equal to those of the Holy Synod and which will be accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad within the framework of its circumstances as put forth in said Act, its Status of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and the laws of the land in which it performs its service.
Appeals of rulings of the supreme religious and judicial body of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad will be made to the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia.
Changes made to the Status of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad by its ruling body will be approved by the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church if those changes are canonical in nature.
The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad receives its myrrh from the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia.
Now Michael canonically one with the Soviet Church means canonically one with the EP and the Antiochians, aswell as membership of the World Council of Churches.
So the answer to your initial question is "YES"!
Again though the EP is hardly that much better than the Serbs and in many ways a lot more geniunely Christian than most of the "conservitive elements" of the MP. Beware of the Apostles of hatred!I believe you have no idea of the actual forces that the likes of Fr Andrew Philips are backing otherwise you would not be in ROCOR UK.
Just consider the journalist that was shot recently and the pograms aganist the Georgians- not to mention the many forgein students who have been murdered in Putin's Russia because of the colour of their skin while the police stand by and with the encouragement of "traditionalist" MP clergy. That is the reality that lies behind the smooth rhethoric of "Orthodox England".
Do not become a part-taker of such sins.
Theophan.
Michael Astley wrote:Unfortunately (and meaning no disrespect to you), it still leaves me without an answer to the question I asked. It is simply the case that I don't have a sufficiently-detailed understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology to know whether ROCOR's restoration of communion with Moscow will mean that we will also, by that fact, be in communion with the other local churches with which Moscow is in communion.
Why do you use the word "restoration" or "restore" to refer to the ROCOR - MP union. ROCOR and MP have never been in communion, since MP is stalinist product quite recent. If you would study the history of the Russian Church you would realize about it, and you would know that those ones that use the word "restoration" are only those "Disinformants".
joasia wrote:The right choice for the ROCOR bishops to make is to stay away from communion with the MP. If they choose to unite with the MP, then they are uniting with the WCC. Any bishop or priest, who disagrees with this union will have to break away. They will be preserving the True Church of Christ.
Up until now, I don't know of any bishops or priests that are commemorating Alexei. Once they do this, the decision to refuse commemoration will have to be made and that's when divisions will be made. Everything that ecumenism stands for is wrong...therefore, anyone who has a solid understanding of Orthodoxy that has been defended by the holy fathers and the blood of the martyrs will know what choice to make.
Those bishops and priests who choose to join with the MP will not be ROCOR anymore. They will forfeit that title as it was meant for the preservation of Orthodoxy against the communist takeover of the Russian Church and any false belief of Orthodoxy. They will have to bow down to the MP Patriarchate.
Autonomy is not an option with this union. Total submission is the goal. Autonomy means that ROCOR will give commemoration to their own Metropolitan, but if they choose to finalize the union with the MP, then they are not independent anymore; they have to commemorate the Patriarch. This is the same issue occuring with the EP and the papists.
Joanna
Dear Joanna:
I agree with you about Ecumenism. But MP neither has repented of its sergianism. We only shoud not take this topic from the Ecumenism, because maybe Moscow Patriarchate will leave WCC to deceive many ones and do not to seem ecumenist, just as it did the Georgian Patriarchate and others (this is known as the "Third Way"), they are not in the WCC, but they are even sergianist and ecumenist, since the Patriarch Ilia was a KGB agent and he do not repented and he is still a ecumenist because he prays with heretics and Jews. It ecumenism and sergianism are complementary and inseparable.
On the other hand, many people in the Serbian Patriarchate says that they are not ecumenist because SP is not member of WCC but only "observer." And with this position they seek to deceive saying that they are not ecumenist, but we can see that they behave in the same way that the Roman Catholics, because the RCs only are "orservers" in the WCC, but active ecumenist... And SP is "observer" but continue participating in the prayer with the heretics and receiving money from WCC.
Many thanks to all for your responses, and especially to those who have given answer to my initial question. That is a great help.
As for the question of The St Edward Brotherhood's Communion practices, I thought it was common knoaledge that ROCOR does not give Communion only to those of us on the Church Calendar. As it was explained to me, our clergy do not concelebrate with clergy on the New Calendar, but we do not hold the lay faithful of New Calendarist jurisdictions responsible for the actions of their hierarchies, and so we permit them to share in the Mysteries in our churches. It is often the case that a New Calendar church may be he only one that a person has ready acess to, and as ROCOR (to my knowledge), does not deny that these churches have grace, then we give Communion to their laity.
Regarding the Act on Canonical Communion, I don't wish to cast doubt on the sincerity of your post in any way, Theophan, and I'm very grateful for your concern in this matter. I'm still confused as to how you came by the Act, as it certainly hasn't been published on the ROCOR website, where the last mention made of it was here, on the 6th of September (in the secular calendar).
Now, in light of the understanding that ROCOR, once in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, will be in communion with the other local churches, is it possible to still not concelebrate with those on the New calendar, or does the state of full communion preclude such an arrangement by definition?
Many thanks.
Why does everyone say about rocor "once in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, will be in communion with the other local churches," which I agree with, BUT what is the difference between the Serb Patr. and MP, rocor has always been in communion with world orthodoxy through the Serb. Patr. Therfore ROCOR's comprise on True Orthodoxy is much older than a couple of years, and union with the MP is irrelavent, they already commune with world orthodoxy.