On another forum, someone posted a link to the BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ATTITUDE OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH TOWARD THE OTHER CHRISTIAN CONFESSIONS adopted by the Jubilee Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church August 14, 2000
So far I have only skimmed this document, which is by the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) not ROCOR, but I was wondering what those of you who like to read long documents think of it.
Nicholas,
I don't especially like reading long documents but I thought this one would be a good one to read considering all the (ROCiE/ROCOR/MP) "stuff" that is in the air. After having read through the statement, I must say that I agreed with much of it. In fact, out of fifty-nine paragraphs (if I counted correctly), I only strongly disagreed with a single paragraph. Unfortunately, that paragraph (7.3) ruined what was, to that point, a positive read. Anyway, here's some thoughts:
1. The Unity of the Church and the sin of human divisions
I thought this section was pretty orthodox, giving the typical ecclesiological statement you'd expect. I thought the first sentence of 1.10 was a very good statement to include, and most of the rest (such as the first two statements of 1.19) was just normal Orthodox ecclesiology.
I think Christ needs to be emphasised more than the Holy Spirit when discussing the foundation of the Church, it's constitution, and so forth (1.6). Perhaps others (including my patron saint) emphasise Christ too much, but there's also the possibility of emphasising Christ too little, which I think this document perhaps does.
Of course the eucharist is seen as having an important role in unity in Orthodoxy (1.8 ), but I would have liked to have seen both mention of the other sacraments by name, and also mention of all the other virtues in the christocentric life, which also bind us together as cells in the body of Christ.
A few things seemed to vague to me in this section, though. For instance, what does 1.15 and 1.17 mean in relation to those outside the Church? Obviously those "outside the Church" have grace to some extent, and for some purposes; but the statements seem to allow for there being grace in heterodox sacraments, which is not orthodox. They don't come out and say this, but use such language that one is unsure what exactly their position is. The last sentence of 1.17 is particularly troubling to me as I'm not sure what exactly they mean by it.
Section 1.9 gives a bit of a foretaste of what to expect later, though at the time I tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to remain optimistic. It's emphasis on "lawful Church authority" and hierarchy was, of course, right on theologically, but it made me wonder if they were setting up a tower from which to shoot arrows at their perceived enemies. Unfortunately, they shot a number of arrows at traditionalists towards the end of the document... but that can be discussed later.
2. The quest for the restoration of the unity
I'll be frank, this section was one of the better passages I've read in an ecclesiological text. won't say much about this section as I thought it was about as orthodox as you could get. The statement that "unity lies through repentance, conversion, and renewal" (2.7) was particularly positive in my mind, and I'm glad that it is the MP position. Just one other note on this section, 2.11 should be required reading for all those Orthodox who are actively seeking "unity" with those outside the Orthodox Church. (we all want unity, of course; I'm here talking about those involved in the ecumenical movement, Orthodox-Catholic dialogues, etc.). This (ie. 2.11) is a principle that many people seem to miss these days in all these discussions.
Sections 3 through 6
The sections that followed seemed to return to the normal run-of-the-mill ecclesiological stuff. These sections (3-6) are so much a change from the previous section (2), in terms of theological insight and information, that I'm left wondering if someone wrote section two, and a completely different person wrote the rest of the document. Ah well, maybe it's just me.
Only two things will be mentioned about section three, though both are very unimportant to the overall scheme of things. First, they kept mentioning that the Orthodox Church was guardian of that which came from the "Early Church". This is not, of course, wrong; yet the way it came off, it sounded almost like they have an inferiority complex, like they believe "the best is behind us," and that the Church today was somehow incapable of doing the same things that the early Church did. Perhaps I'm just reading too much into this, though. The second comment is related to their quoting of the Third Pre-Conciliar Panorthodox Conference. There isn't a source more lacking in credibility or potency than the Chambesy "Conferences" in the Orthodox world. I won't speculate as to why they chose that document in particular to quote.
Section 4, I think, and especially 4.5 and 4.6, shows how much the MP has been fooled (perhaps by it's own wishful--ie. not realistic--thinking). "Mutual openness to communication," "a willingness to understand," and "sincere and profound interest in studying the patristic heritage of the faith and order of the Early Church" do not necessarily demonstrate that the people in question will "repent" and experience "conversion" and "renewal" in the Orthodox Church (cf 2.7)
The rest of my answer to what is said in section 4 ties in with what my answer is to section 5. The normal defense for continuing non-productive or only theologically productive (ie. no souls are brought into the ark of salvation) discussions is that we Orthodox must be a witness for our faith. The implication is usually that those who don't participate are "closed off," xenophobic, arrogant, unloving, etc. (cf 7.3) It's all a matter of method, though, not a matter of one group lacking love, want for unity, and so forth. The MP has chosen the Protestant method for bringing about unity: let's all get together and say what we believe and see if who each of us finds the most persuasive. The difference between an Ecumenical meeting and a Southern Baptist Bible Study is that the Ecumenists have fancy degrees hanging on the walls. Otherwise, it's the same thing going on: lots of people discussing their perspective, hoping that somehow they can find a way through the mess.
Now, when I say that the MP has chosen this method, I don't mean that they are an active participant like the rest. The MP would be like the knowledgable Southern Baptist pastor who was trying to get everyone's attention so that he could shed light on what was being discussed. The problem is, as much as the other members might seem willing to listen and go along with what is being said, none of them really take the pastor any more seriously than they do Joe Schmoe beside them. Thus we find the MP "witnessing" to people who are too busy trying to get women ordained and homosexuals married to care about what the true apostolic church taught. Yet, because a few theologians happen to listen, the MP is fooled into thinking that it's making a difference. (Tell me, if no one comes into the ark of salvation, the Orthodox Church, what difference is really made? Wouldn't even the same time spent in prayer have been more beneficial for the same exact souls that were being talked to?) But now I've gone and gotten up on my soapbox; I apologize for that.
Let me come back down to earth (I have an inflated ego) and say that 6.3 provides an interesting concept that I think should be examined more. (or maybe it's been examined and I'm just not aware of it ) The concepts in this section are not wholly unorthodox, though at first they may seem to be.
7. Internal tasks in relation to dialogue with non-Orthodox confessions
ROCOR, the Greek old-calendarists, etc. are not Orthodox, did you know that? What other conclusion than this can we draw considering that these groups are mentioned in the "non-Orthodox confessions" section? This section is simply too much for me to comment on, for I know that if I attempt to comment on it I'll just get back up on my soapbox again (and probably say something I'll regret). I'll just say that, contrary to what the document says, the traditionalist groups do NOT:
Individual members of these groups might do this (I'm sure there are bad apples in every Church, I'm probably one of them), but the groups as a whole, in their official positions and texts, certainly do not do these things. Accusation number two is particularly absurd, but this is the kind of thing that the so-called "pan-Orthodox meetings" talk about. It should be mentioned, though, that while they bash the traditionalists, their main concern seems to be trying to invent ways to pretend like certain groups really aren't monophysites. In other words, they give the heretics the benefit of the doubt, and they give the traditionalists the back of their hand.
But..... let us turn to them the other cheek, we've (I've) done enough polemical stuff.
Justin
PS. I just read back through the post and saw a bunch of typos, please forgive me for them. I'm too tired to edit it (again) tonight.
Just a note. I was thinking about the text last night, and I should have been more careful in my wording. While I think ROCOR is included in the "schismatics" mentioned, I'm have no proof that they are. I don't think it matters much as they are obviously aiming it at some old calendarists/anti-ecumenists somewhere for their stance. Still, I should have been more careful. And I should have been more irenic.
Justin
Justin,
Wow! What a thorough look at the document. You did a really good job at breaking it down and arguing the points needed to be argued. What more could I say?
This doesn't exactly have a lot to do with it, but since we're on the subject of ecumenism and denominations (if that's the proper term) outside The Church, it makes you wonder. Well, it makes me wonder about how I live my life and what example I set. I work with a lot of people, from different religions, usually calling themselves some kind of Christian. Half of my teachers are Copts, a couple of my classmates are Mormons, Jews and then the general run-of-the-mill born-again/protestant fundamentalist type. We all manage to do a pretty good job of not bothering each other about our religions, and just focusing on our work. I'm sure God keeps my mouth shut for a reason (since I'm probably the type to do more harm than good with it) 
But anyway, I just wanted to get that out and ask if anyone had any experiences to share on the topic (of dealing with non-Orthodox people in the workplace, etc).