What would you do if ROCOR and the MP united tomorrow?

[ania]

Vasily, I would do the same. Met. Lavr is doing his best to end the horrible rift in The Russian Church.
From what I've gathered lately from several sources is that the planned meeting for Decemeber in NYC is going to yeild such a result...: Commemorating the Patriarch, but having complete administrative independence. This is an offer (or slight variations on it) that the MP has been making since the fall of communism. Back then I feel (& apparently so did everyone else) that it was to early to sit down for a cozy chat with the MP. Now however, the process has sped up for several reasons. The main one is this...
Pat. Alexi is ill. He & his administration are the ones who agree to this plan. However, when Alexi reposes, the most likely candidate for the Pat. will be Kyril... don't remember his assignment... who is very anti-ROCOR, and if any union would occur, he would demand all sortsa things.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Ania

[Daniel]

From what I've gathered lately from several sources is that the planned meeting for Decemeber in NYC is going to yeild such a result...: Commemorating the Patriarch, but having complete administrative independence.
Ania

You've got to be kidding, right?

Are they freely giving this information out, or are they still trying to keep it quite?

[ania]

It's not that they try to keep it quiet... you have to ask. I just talked to a few members of the clergy, some for, a few against. Ask your priest, if he doesn't know ( & he probably does) call your bishop. It looks like being autonomous, & just commemorate the Pat. is the farthest any of them would want to go at this point. I think, personally the least that will result from the meeting in Dec. is that we will be in communion.
It's an interesting time for ROCOR's history, and we must pray for our bishops, wether we like them or not. And... always remember, that the Lord is the head of our church, not any bishop.
Ania

[Joe Zollars]

right. The Lord is the head of hte Church. So when you have an errant Bishop should you not go to a Bishop who is not in error and thus seperated from Christ?

Joe Zollars

[mwoerl]

the "offer" to simply commemorate the patriarch of moscow and be "autonomous" actually was first proposed by patriarch alexey I soon after world war II.

while i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this or that priest may tell you that "commemorate and be autonomous" is what is being "planned" for this upcoming meeting, i sincerely doubt very, very much that you would find a bishop (of ROCOR, that is!) to tell you the same thing...

"autonomy" has been much touted as "the perfect solution." i have heard priests remark that "i have no problem with the MP, but i could not concelebrate with the _____________ (you fill in the blank-"greeks," "oca," "antiochians")." i, for one, certainly do not feel that an "autonomy" granted by the MP would be so far-reaching that such
"decisions" to pick and choose would be available. remember, "autonomy" is NOT "autocephaly"! the MP offered the north american metropolia "autonomy" on more than occasion-they always turned it down.

speaking of the "terrible rift," let us not simply concentrate on the fact that there is a "rift;" let us not forget WHY there was a rift in the first place! i know, i know, nobody is interested in "church politics!"

metropolitan kirill (gundayev) is head of the external relations department of the moscow patriarchate, and possibly one of the worst of the holdovers from the communist era. one of the "leading priests" of ROCOR recently stated that ecumenism was a non-issue with the MP, and gave his "proof" as the fact that met. kirill had said "ecumenism has met a dead end." unforutnately, this priest did not inform us that met. kirill said a litte bit more...after his statement about the "dead end," met. kirill went on to say that, therefore, "ecumenism needs to be renewed..."

and, yes, there are some who think that this process had better be completed "now or never," because these "generous" offers may be, at some time in the future, withdrawn. patriarch alexey II himself has warned that he feels that ROCOR, with all its "assimilated" third generation russians, and all its converts, is "in danger of losing its russian character."
which sort of leads one to believe that the MP would simply no longer be interested. you have to wonder, too, how far the MP is willing to go here-they have about 50 million people, thousands upon thousands of parishes, thousands of clergy, and i think over 200 bishops. the MP is a major power in world orthodoxy, and the ecumenical movement. they may get tired of "fooling around" with ROCOR and its comparatively small numbers, and seemingly lessening influence. while, of course, ROCOR has always commented on the "moral strength" of its voice, perhaps these figures show how tiny that "voice" will be. and, to "do it now, because the generous offers may be withdrawn"-is that really the reason we want to see union with the MP? is that what it has come down to?

michael woerl

[mwoerl]

i have given this idea of how good a "deal" we can get from the MP some thought, and, have come to the conclusion that this is a rather disgusting concept all the way around. as well as pretty naive.

first of all, if the MP is now "OK," or however you want to put it-why do we need a deal at all? why do we need autonomy? do we want our diocese, parishes, properties, etc., inplace IN CASE the MP turns out not to be what we thought it was? is there no real TRUST here? IF NOT-then why are we even thinking about this? so, apparently, the MP is "good enough" if we get the "deal" we want, but not "good enough" to trust completely to simply become part and parcel of it?

second, as i mentioned, the MP has over 200 Bishops. we have, i think, 14 bishops-two of who are retired. presuming that the MP would deign to place even ONE of our bishops on the synod of the MP-and that is a stretch,
i think- if kirill did become patriarch after alexey II, it would be very easy for him to propose and push through "changes" to the sweet deal mentioned in an earlier post-he would obviously have no trouble whatsoever in getting enough votes on the synod to do so.

hopefully, all this stuff about getting a "deal" before pat. alexey II's earthly demise is naive dreaming-if even a little of what the church abroad is planning is based on such -uh- "idealism"-God help us!

michael woerl

[ania]

Michael, have a little faith, particularly in your bishops. Their not as stupid & naive as you seem to think, but grown men for whom the Church is a 24 hour occupation. Most of these men are intelligent, educated in church matters, and what more, probably spend more time in prayer than any of us.
And Joe...
right. The Lord is the head of hte Church. So when you have an errantBishop should you not go to a Bishop who is not in error and thus seperated from Christ?<<
Check your grammer on this, as it reads it says that a bishop not in error is seperated from Christ... I'm sure that's not your meaning, but anyway... What I meant by this statement was that since Micheal is in ROCOR, and he believes it part of the True Church (or perhaps the ONLY church), he needs to remember that Christ, always the Good Shepard, will take care of His Church. After all Orthodoxy has since the begining rather messy, and against all odds, is still here. There is an age-old Russian saying... "Pravoslavnaya tserkov ne sushestvoyut iza arhireyov, no nesmotrya na arhireyov." Translation... The Orthodox Church doesn't exist because of bishops, it exists despite bishops. I don't believe any benifit will come of staying seperate from the MP in the long run, and despite Kyrill's threatening presence looming on the horizon, you have to remember, the Lord is the head of ROCOR, & any other true churches, & He will not let it come to harm. If He does not consider the MP a church, He will not let us join.
That's my 2 cents.
Ania