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

[Dcn. John]

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

[Bogatyr]

Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret has found favour with God as is evidenced by the incorruption of his Holy Relics. The same type of reasoning would apply in abandoning the path of isolation of the "Maximites" and their stand against monothelitism or the "Theodorites" and their stand against iconoclasm. Make no mistake, ecumenism is heresy and this fellow won't concede that, but the deified DO. He also does not make any mention of the perseverence of the sergianist structure and its beholden character to the maffia, the vatican and the ecumenists and how these PIGS are bartering Orthodoxy for ecumenical money, priveledge and luxury whilst the MAJORITY of Russia languishes in poverty and neglect.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Daniel]

1. 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"?

Here a post of mine from another thread that may answer some of your question.

Here are some quotes from the WCC’s Constitution:

Their Basis: The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

PURPOSES AND FUNCTIONS:

The World Council of Churches is constituted by the churches to serve the one ecumenical movement.

The primary purpose of the fellowship of churches in the World Council of Churches is to call one another to visible unity in one faith and in one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and common life in Christ, through witness and service to the world, and to advance towards that unity in order that the world may believe.

Here are some quotes from WCC’s Rules:
RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBERSHIP: …commitment to the ecumenical movement as integral to the mission of the church.
…communicate the meaning of ecumenical commitment, to foster and encourage ecumenical relations and action at all levels of their church life and to pursue ecumenical fellowship locally, nationally, regionally and internationally;
…interpret both the broader ecumenical movement and the World Council of Church…

Here is a link to an article on the WCC website. It's called "Christian unity and the world" .

[John the Russian]

The reasons for not uniting are plenty:

1. Please read "can a leopard change his spots" on this site. It is an excellent expose of what is happening in the MP.
2. All this supposed freedom in RUssia and freedom of the church is a farce. It was done before be the Soviets to lure the catacomb clergy and laity out of hiding so that they could later be destroyed. They are attempting the same thing now but on a much larger scale. Put the people to sleep and then deal a large blow to true orthodoxy. Well, once bitten, twice shy.
3. ROCOR has nothing to gain by uniting, but has much to lose. If the MP could acquire all the property, then where will people be able to go to church that is not part of the ecumenistic movement?
   This is just a short list due to time constraints.

[Bogatyr]

http://www.apostle1.com/Regarding_Ecumenism1.html

ECUMENISM MARCHES ON...

The World Council of Churches:
A Visible Expression of the Una Sancta?

The Patristic Position and the Witness of Archimandrite Justin (Popovich)*

1. In 1971, the then Patriarch of Serbia, German, as one of the Presidents of the "World Council of Churches (W.C.C.)," co-signed the following "Message" of this ecumenical organization in Geneva:

And the powerful Breath of renewal will blow into the mighty arena of the Church, as well as into each of her communities; for these are not simple administrative units, but they all constitute a part of the one great Christian Church. (1)
This is a clear formulation of the ecclesiological heresy known as the Branch Theory: that the one and great Christian Church is comprised of its constituent Christian communities.
The Church of Serbia entered the W.C.C. in 1965 (2); thereafter, as Patriarch German began to participate actively in the ecumenical movement—in fact, immediately after his aforementioned declaration—, the ever-memorable dogmatist, Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), ceased to consider him an Orthodox Hierarch and ceased his canonical commemoration, as well as all ecclesiastical relations with him. (1)

It is hence noteworthy that the Patriarch did not attend the funeral of Father Justin (†March 25, 1979)…. (3)

The prestige and authority of Father Justin, this stalwart contemporary Patristic figure, are well known:

‘His repute as a universal Father and Teacher of the Church, who cleaved unremittingly to the Cross of his witness and who bore the marks of Christ, transcended the boundaries of Serbia and spread to the whole world’ (4); ‘Fr. Justin did not speak as an individual, but as the mouth of the Church; he expressed the conscience of the Church, the Faith of the Church’; ‘The preaching of Fr. Justin is a continuation of the preaching of the Holy Fathers of our Church and especially of the last great Father, St. Gregory Palamas.’ (5) (6)

1. We consider it worthwhile, given this reference to the Patristic stature and witness of Father Justin (Popovich), but also in view of recent events, to deal once more, in brief, with the nature and work of the W.C.C.
   A well-known ecumenist sets forth in the form of a question the prevailing set of problems at issue within the bosom of this ecumenical organization in Geneva:

Is the WCC the instrument by which the Christian Churches express their unity in God, or is it that instrument by which the divided Churches attempt to restore the unity of their faith, structures and witness? (7)
One faction of the members of the W.C.C. sees the Council as a visible expression of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (Una Sancta), while another part regards it as a simple ancillary tool for the attainment of unity:
The Orthodox Churches took part already at the inception of the Council, because they firmly believed that they were dealing with a simple tool…. (7)
First and foremost, we must strongly emphasize the falsity of this view that "the Orthodox Churches took part...at the inception of the Council."
The truth is that there was no Pan-Orthodox participation in the first and founding General Assembly of the W.C.C. [emphasis that of the translators] in Amsterdam, Holland (August 22-September 4, 1948): "Only the Œcumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece sent representatives."(8)
And not only was the Orthodox Church not fully represented, but precisely one month earlier it expressed strong protest—virtually Pan-Orthodox in character—thereto: ten leaders and representatives of the Autocephalous Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Albania, at the Congress of Moscow (July 8-18, 1948), refused to take part in the ecumenical movement, since they saw the W.C.C. as aiming towards the creation of an "Ecumenical Church." (9)
Their view was proved indisputably true by the subsequent course of this ecumenical organization in Geneva.

1. The W.C.C. has never ceased to feel and to act explicitly as though it were a super-church, and this has all along been, together with many other factors, the source of various misgivings regarding the multifaceted outlook of the Council.

Some twenty years ago, a veteran ecumenist summarized the Orthodox critique of the World Council of Churches as follows:

But such extremes and deviations and modernist ideas, the polarization and secularization of the World Council of Churches, as well as the tendency of theological dialogue to skirt the truth itself, dispose the Orthodox Church towards a critical attitude towards it. Thus, competent Orthodox judge that the Orthodox Church should rethink her decision to participate in the World Council of Churches, if it does not overcome its present crisis and the impending danger of secularization and ‘horizontalism’ [a preoccupation with worldly issues—Trs.], and if it does not return to its original, purely ecclesiastical purpose. Others, again, maintain the same opinion from a theological standpoint also, that this Council, as it was shaped and acts ecclesiastically, without being a Church, poses a great ecclesiological problem that is difficult to solve, a problem which the Orthodox Church will eventually be forced to confront. (10)
This most profound crisis of the W.C.C., with regard to its ecclesiological identity and bearings, something pointed out even before its inception, has certainly not been solved, and the W.C.C. is keenly preoccupied with it, as evidenced by two recent consultations in Geneva. The first (June 1995) dealt at length with the theme, "A Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches," and had as its goal the "total reappraisal of the ecumenical commitment of the Orthodox Churches and the removal of specific uncertainties over their relations with the W.C.C." (11)
The second (September 1995) dealt with a text of the General Secretary about the "meaning of being a member of the WCC" and ultimately resolved that study "concerning the future orientation of the WCC" should be continued. (12)

Quite correct, then, is the observation that

This non-existence of an essential (ecclesiological) identity creates unlimited room for confusion, disagreements, and arbitrariness in every instance of a decision that involves the orientation and the basic goals of the W.C.C. (13)

1. Perhaps, however, the Orthodox anti-ecumenists exaggerate in maintaining that the W.C.C. is possessed, apart from other things, by a super-church syndrome and the tendency to manifest itself as a kind of supreme authority supra Ecclesiam.
   To prove our point, let us cite, apart from the foregoing "Message" in 1971, that in 1991, the then General Secretary of the W.C.C. stated the following:

We believe that the WCC has a mission to embrace all of the churches, members or not. All of our programs are designed for all Christians, not only for those within our member churches...! (14)
In 1993, the eight-member Presidency of the W.C.C., in its Pentecost "Message," which is addressed to its member "churches" and which was signed by Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria, wrote the following:
We can, as the Church, affirm our solidarity with women…! (15)
In 1994, again in their Pentecost "Message" the Presidents wrote similar, and even worse, things, and it was signed by the same Patriarch:
Our world has become very different since we sent you our last Pentecost message. Changes have come about that have wide repercussions. The Church is obligated by her calling to provide spiritual reserves and examples of virtuous human behavior, in a world that is so persistent in its search for the values of life.... Let us, then, be vigilant and courageous, as members of the body of Christ, as we build our faith in the family anew, in the context of the search for a new world order! (16)
These few testimonies are sufficient to prove the paternalistic syndrome of the W.C.C., to the extent that they have unquestionable ecclesiological weight, and the criticism of those Orthodox opposed to ecumenism focuses primarily on this point, in asserting that the ecumenical movement constitutes an ecclesiological heresy.

1. The one theme to which we constantly return is that the Orthodox members of the W.C.C. sin very gravely because—apart from other considerations—, in their participation in the organization, their joint prayer, their coöperation, and their co-signing of its pronouncements, they help this confederation in Geneva to cultivate its consciousness as an "Ecumenical Church" and its tendency to project itself as a visible expression of the Una Sancta.

In vain do veteran Orthodox ecumenists state emphatically that "the Orthodox will never recognize the W.C.C. as an ecclesiastical body, with the traits of the Una Sancta." (17)

In vain do Orthodox ecumenists formulate "a whole series of desiderata for a more profitable and more fruitful participation of the Orthodox Churches" in the W.C.C. (18)

In vain, finally, do they refer to the "positive and useful services which" the W.C.C. "has offered and continues to offer" on a social and philanthropic level "to its member Churches." (18)

And we underscore the word "in vain," since none of the foregoing can dissuade us from a purely theological and ecclesiological evaluation of the ecumenical movement (and of the W.C.C.), which genuinely constitutes "a tragic alienation from the actuality of the Church." (19)

The resolute stand of the ever-memorable Father Justin (Popovich) points us in the right direction, and the facts underline the dire necessity and "the duty of Orthodoxy to withdraw from the W.C.C." (20)

We repeat, that the Orthodox ecumenists sin very gravely,

—because the very fact of their participation in a man-made confederation constitutes de facto a withdrawal from an Orthodox ecclesiology and an alteration and corruption of the truth of the Church;
—because, by their participation in the W.C.C., they diminish beyond measure the prestige of the One (and Only) Holy Orthodox Church, "accepting like mendicants yearly economic assistance on the part of the Protestant Council of Churches" (21) and finding themselves linked together in various ways as "organic members" of a chain of heterodox communities, "each one of which (is) spiritual death"; (22)

—because they contribute irrevocably to the realization of the syncretistic dreams of the W.C.C., on an inter-Christian and inter-religious level, in that it has been admitted that "attempts" are being made, "chiefly by certain Third World theologians[,] to broaden the scope of the W.C.C., by embracing other religions, with the assertion that ‘the term oikoumene suggests the whole inhabited earth, and not only the Christian part of it’"; (23)

—because, finally, they fully confirm the accurate contention that the ecumenical movement, as was otherwise expected, has "long since degenerated, and aims towards being a kind of pan-religion." (21)

In conclusion, once again we address an anguished question, stemming from brotherly love, to the ecumenists among us Orthodox:
"Quo vadite, Orthodoxi Oecumenisti?"
"Whither go ye, O Orthodox ecumenists?"

• Translated from the Greek by Hieromonk Patapios and Archbishop Chrysostomos from the periodical Hagios Kyprianos, Nos. 267-268 (July-October, 1995), pp. 67-72. This appeared in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, Nos. 3&4, pp. 4-10.
  References and Notes

(1) Orthodoxos Typos, No. 144/June 15, 1971, p. 4, abstract of the text.

(2) At the Assembly of the Central Committee of the W.C.C. in Enungu, Nigeria, January 12-21, 1965 (see Vasilios T. Stavrides, History of the Ecumenical Movement, Analekta Vlatadon 47, pp. 150 and 157, Thessaloniki, 1984).

(3) We have before us the relevant accounts by living Serbian spiritual children of Father Justin. See also Tasos Michalas, Ten Days with the Orthodox Serbs, p. 37, "Heptalophos" Publications, Athens, 1983, where there is a reference to this event, naturally without any mention of the reasons. The recent Orthodox position paper by Bishop Artemije of Rashka-Prizren confirms the attitude of the Serbian Confessor. Bishop Artemije, who is of Father Justin’s stature, submitted to the Serbian Synod this memorandum, entitled, "The Serbian Orthodox Church and the World Council of Churches" (November 17, 1994), in which he declares that ecumenism constitutes an ecclesiological heresy, cites the Patristic position of his Elder at length, and proposes that the Serbs withdraw from the W.C.C., which—according to the memorandum—is a gathering of heretics (see the English text in Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 2 [1996]—Tr.).

(4) Father Vasilios Voloudakis, "Before the Grave of Fr. Justin," in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 356/May 11, 1979, p. 2 (emphasis ours).

(5) Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of St. Gregory (Mt. Athos), "Memorial Address in Honor of the Blessed Father Justin Popovich on His Forty-Day Memorial Service," in Ho Hosios Gregorios, No. 5/1980, pp. 45-47 (emphasis ours).

(6) We remind [our readers] that the ever-memorable Father Justin, in his historic Memorandum to the Serbian Synod (November 13/26, 1974), characterized the W.C.C. as a heretical, humanistic, man-made, man-worshipping association; regarded the position of the Orthodox towards the ecumenical movement and the W.C.C. as deplorably and hideously at odds with Holy Tradition, slavishly degrading the Holy Church; and finally, emphatically underscored that the decision (a Pan-Orthodox one!) that the Orthodox Church should be an organic member of the W.C.C. was apocalyptically atrocious in its un-Orthodoxy and anti-Orthodoxy and a monstrous indignity and unprecedented betrayal! (See the full text of the Memorandum in Koinonia, March-April 1975, pp. 95-101; also in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 235/June 1, 1975, and in Orthodoxos Enstasis kai Martyria, Nos. 18-21/January-December 1990, pp. 166-173.)

(7) Prof. Father Emmanuel Clapsis, "‘What the Spirit is Saying to the Churches’/ Missionary Implications of the 7th General Assembly of the WCC," in the collective volume of G.N. Laimopoulos, The 7th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches—Canberra, February 1991—Chronicle, Texts, Evaluations, p. 247, "Tertios" Publications, Katerini, 1991.

(8) V.T. Stavrides, History of the Ecumenical Movement, op. cit., p. 113. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the few participating Orthodox representatives, "chosen at the last moment" and "not knowing that they would be voting on the first charter" of the W.C.C., which passed itself off as "a fellowship of Churches jure profano [according to secular law], in accordance with Article 66 of the Swiss Civil Code," were divided; "a debate was provoked" and "a disagreement arose," and finally "separate reports were submitted to the Holy Synod (of Greece), and a war of words between the members of the delegation was brought to pass"! (See Gerasimos J. Konidaris, "Amsterdam," entry in the Threskevtike kai Ethike Enkyklopaideia, Vol. 2, cols. 395-396, Athens, 1963.)

(9) V.T. Stavrides, ibid., pp. 111-112. It should be noted that in Amsterdam the Dutch General Secretary, Visser ‘t Hooft cited, among other things, the following characteristics, which express the self-awareness of the W.C.C. at its creation: "(1) we are building a type of inter-church community, for which there is no prior model in the history of the Church; (2) the Ecumenical Council, without substituting for the Churches, constitutes above all a fellowship (Gemeinschaft), which attempts to express the unity in Christ of the 147 Churches (i.e., those which took part in the 1st General Assembly—our note), among which are the historic Holy Orthodox and other Churches; (3) …the sole purpose, which deserves the attention of the Council of Churches, is the manifestation of the one undivided Church." (See G.J. Konidaris, op. cit., emphasis ours.)

(10) John Karmiris, The Orthodox Church in Dialogue with the Heterodox Churches, pp. 79-80 (emphasis ours), in V.T. Stavrides, ibid., p. 204. Cf. Nicholas A. Matsoukas, The Ecumenical Movement/History-Theology, Philosophical and Theological Library, No. 4, p. 278, n. 67, "P. Pournaras" Publications, Thessaloniki, 1991. See also, Vasilios Stavrides, "Orthodox Coöperation in the Ecumenical Movement," Episkepsis, No. 205/ March 1, 1979, p. 14.

(11) Episkepsis, No. 519/June 30, 1995, p. 24. The "Meeting" took place following an invitation from the General Secretary of the W.C.C. at the "Orthodox Center of the Œcumenical Patriarchate" in Chambésy, Geneva, and Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, and senior executives of the Council participated in it (June 19-24, 1995). See a detailed report in Enimerosis (Geneva), 11-1995/7-8, pp. 3-5: "The Future Course of the World Council of Churches[:] the Subject of a Consultation of Its Leadership with the Orthodox and Ancient Oriental Christians," and pp. 10-12: "Orthodox and the World Council of Churches—the Difference between Responsible Criticism and Malicious Misinformation" ("Note" by Protopresbyter George Tsetsis) (reprinted in Ekklesiastike Aletheia, No. 401/September 1-16, 1995, p. 10). Cf. "Response by Mr. Nicholas Psaroudakis" in Orthodoxos Typos, No. 1144/October 13, 1995, pp. 1 and 3, No. 1145/ October 20, 1995, pp. 1 and 3. While certainly not agreeing with the "Note" of Father G. Tsetsis and his severe characterizations of those who react against ecumenism, it is impossible for us to agree with the "Response" of Mr. Psaroudakis, which expresses a purely fundamentalist spirit in both its tone and essence.

(12) Enimerosis, 11-1995/9, p. 2: "World Council of Churches—the 46th Regular Meeting of the Central Committee."

(13) Chrestos Yannaras, The Truth and Unity of the Church, chapter 4, "The Problem of Unity Today," § 10, "Confederational Unity," p. 206, "Gregore" Publications, Athens, 1977 (emphasis ours).

(14) One World, No. 168/August-September 1991, p. 17: "A Mirror of Diversity—A Conversation with Emilio Castro" (emphasis ours).

(15) Ecumenical Press Service, No. 10/93.04.15: "Pentecost Message from the W.C.C."

(16) Ecumenical Press Service, No. 9/94.04.36: "Pentecost Message from the W.C.C. Presidents."

(17) Enimerosis, 11-1995/7-8, p. 4. This statement is that of Metropolitan John of Pergamon, who spoke at the aforementioned Consultation in Geneva (see footnote 11) on the subject of "The Self-Understanding of the Orthodox and the Participation of the Orthodox Churches in the Ecumenical Movement."

(18) Protopresbyter George Tsetsis, "Orthodox and the World Council of Churches—the Difference between Responsible Criticism and Malicious Misinformation," in Enimerosis, 11-1995/7-8, pp. 10-12.

(19) Yannaras, op. cit., p. 216.

(20) V.T. Stavrides, op. cit., p. 216. See also Episkepsis, No. 205/March 1, 1979, p. 13.

(21) Archimandrite Spyridon Bilalis, Orthodoxy and Papism, Vol. 1: Critique of Papism, pp. 376 and 377, "Orthodoxos Typos" Publications, Athens, 1969.

(22) Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Memorandum (see footnote 6).

(23) Enimerosis 9-1993, p. 8 (emphasis ours): "An Orthodox Self-Examination of the Ecumenical Movement Today: Topic of an Address in the Context of Presentations in Memory of Georges Florovsky." Protopresbyter George Tsetsis lectured on this topic, as the keynote speaker, in Boston in May of 1993.

[paleocon]

Daniel,
There is nothing to forgive; you did not offend me.
The WCC makes me sick, and I truly believe its premise and mission are sinful. I see no reason for the MP or the Serbs, or the Bulgarians to be involved with them, but I sure wish the Orthodox in China or N. Korea could get there.
The question is often asked, ' what does ROCOR have to gain from a reunification with the MP?' It should be the opposite, we have everything to gain. The MP has satisfied the conditions that ROCOR has stated must be met.
As far as blame goes, who in the US is apologising for our own Communist dictator, FDR? I have always believed he is as much to blame as Stalin for the situation in Russia. He is certainly responsible for selling Eastern Europe (and millions of Orthodox) into slavery for 40 years.
I agree fully with Deacon John.

[rebecca]

I have another question about this: Is the ultimate goal to unite the administrations of ROCOR and the MP, or is it simply to establish communion? If it is the former, what is the advantage to such a thing? Would our bishops retain their positions? Would ROCOR become the Church of Russia's (ie MP's) "western branch"? Since the whole aim of the Church is the salvation of its flock, I don't understand why administrational unity (as opposed to communion and fraternal relations) would be to the advantage of either party.