Dear Mr. Woerl
This is my first post into this forum. I have generally been "off" the internet lists lately - though I have been following recent events in the ROCOR closely.
As way of introduction, I was ordained in the ROCOR and received by the Patriarchate in 2001. I believed then and now that the time was overdue to end the division between the ROCOR and the MP, the glorification of the Royal Martyrs and the Council in 2000 by the MP was yet another sign that the Church in Russia was being renewed, despite every trial and temptation. The Church has, since the end of communism in 1991, made great progress towards sharing many of the same views as the ROCOR. There has been tremendous restoration of churches and monasticism. Orthodoxy is being spread through society - in the armed forces, in education, and yes, even in politics. Orthodox art and literature are flourishing again. The Church has changed and continues to change - yet it still has a ways to go. Such is the nature of the total enslavement which the Church experienced. But at what point does the continuing stand of the ROCOR stop making sense? Let me try to answer some of you questions as best I can, and only from my opinion and limited experience-
1. how is the fact that the mp has "glorified" SOME of the new martyrs of russia, while absolutely refusing to glorify those who strongly opposed met. sergius evidence of anything "good," of anything that would make anyone in rocor feel somehow pleased with the mp? supposedly there are factions within the mp who want to also "glorify" met. sergius, citing his "moral suffering," and the fact that he "saved" the church. would this be acceptable? what would "former rocor adherents" after a union do if such a "glorification" was undertaken by the mp, other than shutup and have to accept it?
Would you agree that among the New-martyrs were men and women who held to various allegiances - some towards Met. Sergius and some towards Met. Joseph and others not sure who - or what - was the nature of Church administration at times? Some of these martyrs denied the sacramental grace of Met. Sergius and considered him heretical, while others refused to commemorate him and did not deny such things. I believe the ROCOR glorified members of both camps but the MP has been more cautious because so much of the ammunition used against the current MP is found among the words directed by those of the former group. It would make as much sense for the MP to wholesale glorify them as to ask why doesn't the ROCOR glorify Patriarch Sergius. So I believe that it will take time and distance concerning certain new martyrs, and for the role and place of Patriarch Sergius, and for the role and place of the ROCOR - to be understood and accepted by the Russian Church as a whole. Isn't it just recently that the Church tried to understand and resolve the Old Believer schism - I would think that time and mutual forgiveness would go along way towards placing the facts of history into a context which belongs to the Church as a whole and would be acceptable to all. As far as the glorification of Pat. Sergius - is this really a consideration or just a scare tactic? Is there devotion towards him spiritually and would God allow it? Would not the history of the ROCOR , now a part of the larger history of the whole Russian Church, make such a consideration unnecessary? What would be its profit and meaning? And are all Orthodox under obligation to venerate any and all - or are we given a choice to find devotion and sanctity as the Lord sees fit to bring us closer to him?
2. patirarch alexey II himself has said (in an interview) that "met. sergius saved the church." the statement of met. sergius, "i am saving [or trying to save] the church" was always ione of the biggest points, as it was rebutted by the fact that only christ can save the church, and attempting to safeguard church institutions-such as a visible above-ground episcopate-incidentally, which of course includes "me" (that is, met. sergius) is not saving the church anyway, but simply saving yourself and your cronies. if patriarch alexey II believes what he said in the interview, that met. sergius indeed "saved the church," with all that implies, why does anyone think he has "repented" of sergianism?
Well no doubt Met. Laurus can quiz him on this now that a face to face meeting is planned! I think a case can be made from a concerted reading of history that the Church even under Met. Sergius barely survived. It, even as the "official Church permited by the Soviets", was slaughtered down to the bones. Yet those bones were what rattled as the Germans attacked Russia and those bones were eventually recognized by the other Orthodox Patriarchates and Autocephalous churches as being the Russian Church. and those bones today have been renewed into the largest Orthodox Church in the world. Does not the verdict of history of the Orthodox ecumene count in the greater scheme of things? I'd say it is decisive. All the other churches went in communion with the Church of Met. Sergius. So it was recognized that the Church - despite the persecutions and perversions of ecclesiastical life, was alive. I would attribute its survival to the Lord who promised that the gates of hell would not prevail.
Now "Sergianism" can mean different things to different people at different times in church history. Obviously, the MP formally renounced subjection to the state as a wrong in its Social Doctrine of 2000. How Met. Sergius himself will eventually be regarded by the whole Russian Church is still up in the air. The MP could as well have its questions about the role of ROCOR hierarchs collaborating in Germany or Yugoslavia? Can one lay these questions aside - Who was right, who was wrong - and try to move on to essentials. Because in essentials the Patriarchate and the ROCOR are much closer than these sticking points would suggest.
3. a recent post stated that "the murderers are all now dead." i have read that patriarch alexey II, in some former capacity in the mp, was put in charge of the investigations, etc., surrounding the actions of boris talantov. boris talantov was a soviet citizen who protested about mp activities, and was subsequently sent to the gulag and died. the article i read suggested strngly that patriarch alexey was implicated in the imrpisonment of boris talantov in the gulag and his subsequent death. if this is indeed the case, then it seems "all the murderers" are NOT dead. also, hierarchs of the mp who clearly were kgb officers, who worked for the kgb, who informed on believers, which caused more than "mere discomfort" for those believers in the soviet union (if you care to recall, anti-government activity was punishable by long imprisonment in the gulag or the death penalty; long imprisonment in the gulag often was a death penalty in itself!). should such hierarchs still be in control of the church in russia? even if they have gotten down on their knees and repented? would not such "repentance" be a bit more believeable if such hierarchs were to include giving up their privileged postions as the most powerful hierarchs of the mp and retiring to a monastery? can such people be trusted at all?
So you are suggesting that Pat. Alexey is personally responsible for the death of Boris Talantov? May I ask for some evidence, references etc.
As far as repentent hierarchs go - they repented and their flocks in Russia forgave them, what more is there to be asked? Pat. Alexey is the Patriarch of Moscow, there isn't another (like the Pope and the anti-pope), and it seems rather disingenuous to make a war criminal out of him. But he is getting older and illness has taken its tole so the question might be muted in the near future. The overall hierarchy if generally newer and many were elevated since 1991 so the caliber can definitely be said to be getting closer to what the ROCOR has hoped for.
4. in the same post, i think, that mentioned "all the murderers are dead," a statement was made concering the "worthiness" of the bishops and clergy of the mp-something like, "oh some of their clergy aren't the best-we have the same problems in rocor." while no one can deny those problems in rocor, do we have problems of the same scale? the post of the article by vladimir moss, which outlined very disturbing-to say the least-activities of, again, some of the most powerful mp hierarchs-not merely homosexuality, but entire monasteries as havens of homosexual activity-there is simply nothing happening in rocor even remotely close to this scale of activity. do we want to be in "union" with such hierarchs, some of whom are certainly powerful enough to become the next patriarch?
Yes you have problems of the same scale. Why go into it. Look at your monasteries and ex-monasteries. The MP recently dealt with a case of homosexual marriage and with the ordination of a homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church. It quickly condemned them as sinful.
5. i do not know that simple membership in the wcc is "evidence" of heresy-is there some sort of statement of beliefs churches must "sign on to" to join? and, although i am not comfortable with membership in the wcc for an orthodox church, on the other hand, i do not know that receiving "charity" is a good enough reason to participate. if the wcc is such a "wonderful organization," why would their "charity" rely on membership? we are being told that the mp is "no longer meaningfully involved" in ecumenism, which i do not think it the truth. also, does anyone really buy patriarch alexey's excuse that the mp must be in the wcc to "help fight terrorism"?
I dislike the WCC. It is a waste of time at this point. We are no longer witnessing to the truth of Orthodoxy as was originally considered by people like Georges Florovsky but are being lead into political and secular arenas of cooperation under the guise of some nominal Christian aura. We Orthodox know that asceticism would solve many more problems than any ecumenical gatherings. Nevertheless, some Orthodox seek legitimacy of sorts from the heterodox and play along. I personally wish that the Church would reach out to other Orthodox (Old calendarists etc.) first. As far as fighting "terrorism" - that doen't make much sense to me.
Met. Kyrill of Smolensk claimed that "ecumenism is at a deadend" so perhaps things can turn a corner. Also, the ROCOR will not be going to any of these meetings and perhaps can influence the nature of future involvement in forums such as the WCC. It seems like a failed experiment whose time has ended.
6. what benefits will the rocor gain from union with the mp? it seems to me that this union is being based largely on sentimental and nationalistic reasons. the "temporary" nature of the rocor is always being mentioned, yet, in the very same document, also "after the fall of the godless authority," a "return to russia" was called for. i dont see nobody returnin! of course, it is a heck of a lot more comfy here . . .
The essential benefit will be communion with the whole Church something that self-imposed isolation and the legacy of Bishop Gregory Grabbe and Met. Philaret bequethed to the ROCOR. Communion is a safeguard, and a fundamental definition of the nature of the Church. If you accept that the MP is an Orthodox Church - then the statutes of the ROCOR leave no room for continued separation. It is a part of the ROCOR's legacy to return to Russia the treasures of the faith which were safeguarded - and this fulfillment has been a part and parcel of how and why the resurrection of Russia has happened. I am humbled when I hear that Fr. Seraphim Rose is widely venerated and read in Russia or that St. John of Shanghai is beloved. I was very moved that Pat. Alexey received an icon of St. John from the bishops, what a grace and a fulfillment for the Church Abroad. If the ROCOR is not returning literally, they are returning on an ecclesial level towards communion with the rest of the Church and this is what the ROCOR needs to do to not become the branch "that withers and dies".
Well that's about as much as I can muster. I have hope that the ROCOR can withstand the onslaught of the demons who will assault the current process of reconciliation. It seesm clear that the Patriarchate needs the ROCOR and the ROCOR needs the Patriarchate because things have changed substantially for the better for the Church in Russia. As the Lord asked of his followers as he spoke to His father " that they may be one, as we are", may the Lord's will be done !
In Christ,
Dcn. John