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

[Joe Zollars]

The Lord does not prevent people from going into apostasy, but He does keep the Church from disappearing because of it.

Joe Zollars

[rebecca]

Okay, I know that the whole purpose of ROCOR was to preserve the Russian church from abroad since it was being persecuted within. So naturally, when the persecution ends, so should the temporary synod of bishops. But let's look at ROCOR now. It has many parishes all over the West, largely consisting of people who aren't Russian or have no intention of returning to Russia. So why unite with the MP? Because that was the ultimate goal according to the founding documents? Is there something in the Canons that says we must? If we're confident in the MP's integrity, why can't we just be in communion with them but not be absorbed into their administration? Why should the Russian church abroad be that closely tied to the church in Russia? I'm not trying to second-guess our bishops; I just don't understand the situation very well.

P.S. I purposely refrained from using the words "autocephaly" and "autonomy". I'm not really clear on their definition in this context.

[mwoerl]

ania, i have seen and heard statements such as yours many, many times. first of all, i agree that, spiritually, our bishops in rocor are above and beyond what i could ever possibly HOPE to even come close to. however, i think you will agree, in the orthodox church, we have no "infallible" popes, patriarchs, metropolitans, or bishops. i have been told things similar to what you said more in the cases of lower clergy than bishops-but it applies similarly, i believe. time and time again, i have seen priests who i KNEW were-uh-questionable. it was always, "OH MY! you cant dare think/feel/say that about a priest..." then, of course, a few weeks/months later, when that priest went on his merry way to another jurisdiction, or to prison, or to "freedom" from "out of the closet," or whatever-then, of course, it was fair game for anyone and all to pronounce them "scum," among other choice epithets. i would simply ask you to remember bishop varnava (prokfieff), who committed insanity after insanity AS A BISHOP (if you need a list, let me know...); of course, it was the same thing-"how dare you even think badly of a bishop?" now, of course, he, too, is relegated to the "scum" category by those who are supposed to give us an example. I don't say this or that bishop or priest is a "bad" bishop, or priest, or person-i simply question some of their acts. also, once they have "departed for greener pastures," or prison, i don't relegate them to "scum," either. many people i know who were brought up in the 50's in the church abroad tell me that the venerable and learned priests they had in those days ENCOURAGED them to question everything-question your faith! find out about it! now, unfortunately, it seems it is the opposite-"shut your mouth and do what you are told." "don't pay attention to this, don't pay attention to that!" "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain!" this is so obviously a controlling tactic, whether it is clothed in pious platitudes, or whether it is put, simply and briefly, "shut your mouth and do what you are told;" i do not feel there is any necessity whatsoever for such nonsense.
also, the way the "union" with the mp is being approached by some "leading clergy," and by some "wannabe leading clergy," who engage in character assassination and insults against those WHO SIMPLY ASK QUESTIONS in absolutely intolerable. i feel strongly that if this "union" was being approached in an honest, forthright manner, there would be no need whatsoever for those so in favor of it to tell people to shut up, and to attack people who ask questions. this behavior is simply unconscionable.
some time back, as a sort of "damage control" over the "mansonville" affair, an article appeared in orthodox life. I cannot even remember the title of the article, but its main points were that we aboslutely cannot question our bishops or clergy; that since we are not holy enough, we DESERVE the bishops and clergy "that we get." please, tell that to the arab parishioners in cincinnati, whose "priest" (who never was a priest at all, only a deacon!) stole thier $45,000 building fund, and left them with $1,500 worth of 1-900 telephone bills; please, tell that to parishioners in cincinnati in the russian parish who witnessed time after time, a hieromonk eating kielbasa, after, of course, making the sign of the cross over it and saying, "its fish now, yuk yuk yuk;" please tell that to the former parishioners from indianapolis who had to see their priest in the newspapers, arrested for embezzlement; please tell that to the parishioners in the detroit area whose priest called an illegal parish meeting, and with about 5% of the voting members present, conducted a "vote" that declared the parish was joining the MP, and when this tactic failed miserably, this priest, in a display of his mental balance, chained himself to the altar (and was subsequently accepted by the MP!); please tell that to the young boys victimized by "father" konon lasky! please tell that to the young boys who were victimized at blanco! tell that to the pious russians who were in the catacomb church, and when the church abroad sent a bishop to them, instead of feeding them spiritually he was feeding the newspapers with stories about his fascination with the fascist pamyat, or trying to engineer a "union" between the church abroad and the ukrainian autocephalists! sorry, people, tough luck-you just weren't holy enough-you all deserved what you got! just don't question it!

yes, we keep hearing about how "originally," the church abroad was to be a temporary entity, and that is why we must join the MP. well, shoot me if i am wrong, but didn' that exact same document also make mention of the "fact" that after this "temporary" situation had ended, there would subsequently be a RETURN to russia? -uh- i don't see any big lines forming at the aeroflot terminal, do you? (i know, i know, i am an idiot for bringing up THAT part of the document, but the pro-MP people are simply SO WISE for bringing up the PART of it that they are fond of quoting) so, see, we can pick and choose what we want from these old moldy documents, can't we? i believe the correct term is what is "convenient to the cause."

"autonomy" and "autocephaly," in "this context:"

"autonomy"-we would simply be under the moscow patriarchate. there may be agreements that the church abroad would keep its current structure intact, that the bishops of the church abroad would continue to select new bishops, that the bishops of the church abroad would continue to select new metropolitans to head it. usually, in arrangements of "autonomy," however, the patriarchate a church is under-again, in this case-moscow- has a right to refuse candidates for bishop or metropolitan. the patriarchate a church is under in an "autonomy" consecrates the chrism for that church; the patriarchate a church is under in an "autonomy" is the "final judge" for disputes, etc., bewteen bishops and clergy. and, the patriarch would be commemorated during services. it would seem arrangements of "autonomy" could be altered or even revoked, pretty much at the pleasure of the patriarchate over the "autonomous" church.

"autocephaly," in this or any other context, means simply that a church is entirely self-governing. an "autocpehaly" could not be "revoked" (much to the chagrin, no doubt, to those who think the OCA's "autocephaly" COULD or WOULD be...).

michael woerl

[rebecca]

yes, we keep hearing about how "originally," the church abroad was to be a temporary entity, and that is why we must join the MP. well, shoot me if i am wrong, but didn' that exact same document also make mention of the "fact" that after this "temporary" situation had ended, there would subsequently be a RETURN to russia? -uh- i don't see any big lines forming at the aeroflot terminal, do you?

Yes, that was my point. Since Russia stayed under communism for so long, and the church abroad has subsequently become quite established in the West, why go back under the administration of the MP? Is it a canonical issue? Could anyone please tell me how a church gains "autocephaly"? Is it an official thing you get from a patriarchate? But as long as you have bishops, you can keep consecrating more bishops, and go on indefinitely, choosing to be in communion with whomever you want, right?

[Joe Zollars]

is it even possible for the many ROCA parishes in this country to go under the MP what with the MP's agreement with OCA? what would be extremely strange indeed is if hte rocor in this coutnry comes under OCA.

Joe Zollars

[rebecca]

If we unite with the MP, that means we'll have to be in communion with everyone they're in communion with, i.e. "world Orthodoxy". Right?

[mwoerl]

physicsgirl: is rocor going back under the MP a canonical issue? strictly speaking, yes it is; it is complicated by the fact that some feel the MP is either tainted by its years under communism, or, without grace due to sergianism and ecumenism.

but-following the scenario being played out now-that is, for the sake of this explanation-say, the MP is now "OK"- is it a canonical issue as rocor stressed over and over throughout the years that they were PART of the russian church, separated only because the moscow patriarchate was both created and controlled by the atheist soviet authority. in the beginning, MOST orthodox churches recognized this stand as legitimate. as the years went by, when rocor announced that the mp's involvement in ecumenism was also a factor in the separation, this caused orthodox churches involved in ecumenism to look more and more askance at rocor, until we have the situation now where practically all the churches of "World Orthodoxy" proclaim that rocor is "uncanonical," "illegitimate," "invalid," "schismatic," what have you (various ones put it various ways). by the reckoning of "World Orthodoxy," therefore, rocor must unite with the mp for the sake of "legitimacy." so, from the standpoint of "World Orthodoxy," it is a canonical issue.

on the other hand, from the standpoint of the greek old calendarists, roac, rocie, etc., it is a canonical issue that rocor MUST NOT unite with the mp, as they state that the mp is "without grace," and therefore, a truly "canonical and grace-filled" union with the mp is impossible, and any union now would certainly "seal the fate" of rocor as simply another graceless jurisdiction of "world orthodoxy."

[ i would like to comment here that i know more than one priest who i think desires this "legitimacy" (that is, recognition by "world orthodoxy") very, very, very much-i think they feel like "second class clergy," or "second class orthodox," because they cannot freely serve with the oca, greek, and antiochian parishes surrounding them; they cannot fully participate (in most cases-i know, i know, there is always an exception!) in the "orthodox clergy associations" in various cities; they are not invited to or allowed to participate in scoba-sponsored "sunday of orthodoxy" vespers, etc., etc., etc. i myself do not attach any importance to all of this stuff, but, unfortunately, some priests see it as areally "big deal." most of these priests, i think, are converts-my question would be-"you didn't know any of this when you signed on???" ]

so, i guess the short answer to "is this a canonical question?" is: yes, it is; but, rocor has basically ignored these criticisms against itself previously. if they were to continue "business as usual," i suppose they could go on the way things are now. but-if they did, they would probably never gain "recognition" from "world orthodoxy." and the mp would probably go hog wild with property grabs wherever they thought they had even a slim chance of getting away with it.

how does a church become autocephalous? well, this is another one of those involved, complicated, and confusing questions! the short answer to this one is that it has to be granted by the "mother church," then assented to by the rest of the orthodox church. constantinople, however, claims only IT can grant autocephaly (constantinple granted autocephaly to the russian church). constantinople did an end-run around the russian church in the early 1920's, granting "autocephaly" to the russian parishes in poland. in 1948, the mp said they did not recognize that, and then went on themselves and granted autocephaly to the polish church. the mp also granted autocephaly to the czech church (that is, basically, the russian parishes in czechoslovakia); i am not aware of constantinople's reaction to either-however, i think they MIGHT recognize the autocephaly of the polish church, i am not sure about czechoslovakia. to further confuse matters, the mp granted autocephaly to the north american metropolia-now known as the oca-and that autocephaly, to this day, is NOT recognized by constantinople or, i think, any other of the patriarchates. BUT-these patriarchates DO serve with the oca, despite this "non-recognition." (youhave to unbderstand that if the other patriarchates "recognixed" th autocephaly of the oca, they would basically have to turn over all thier parishes in north america to the oca adn withdraw completely from north america!) also, to answer what i think this question implies-rocor will not be granted "autocephaly" anytime in the foreseeable future by any patriarchate. it just aint gonna happen...."world orthodoxy" does not want an officially autocephalous church they would view as a "loose cannoon" that would be criticizing them for ecumenism and acceptance of the new calendar; none of the traditionalist old calendarists would accept an "autocephaly" granted by "world orthodoxy," or have anything to do with it.

joe zollars: i realize that the mp granted "autocephaly" to the oca. (this issue is also complicated by the fact that rocor does not recognize that autocephaly!) so, strictly speaking, if rocor and the mp unite, then, rocor's parishes in the usa & canada should simply be absorbed into the oca. but, like rocor being granted "autocephaly,"-it simply aint gonna happen. i surely do not know what excuses, rationalizations, explanations, etc, etc, etc, will be put forth for this situation in the event of union, but, believe me-it aint gonna happen! some conference or meeting or whatever was held recently, and i think the mp was justifying its parishes in the usa (which i think are increasing in number) because they had to "minister" to the seemingly ever increasing russians who come here. maybe some explanation like this will be given....who knows! it seems the questions such as, "whose toes will this union step on" has not been a question that anyone cares to address, or has possibly even given thought to. two other factors are also involved here-first, the oca cant make TOO much noise, or they will be accused of "being against the unity of the russian church for their own interests," and, while this could be one of the stickiest little "side-issues" that is involved in any rocor-mp union, i doubt very seriously that if the mp has made up its mind to "do it," that any protests or complaints from the oca would be paid much serious attention to. joe, it would be EXTREMELY strange indeed if rocor in north america would come under the oca, but, it aint gonna happen! anybody wanna bet IT WILL happen-ill give ya good odds!

michael woerl