Holy Transfiguration Monastary

[ania]

Juliana,
"New ROCOR" indeed. Matushka Ann has been in ROCOR since before quite a few of the most vocal members of this forum even born. I'm not even gonna start going on about that she's highly intelligent, well read, etc. I just want to say that she's old-school ROCOR as you can get when your nationality is Scots-Irish. She's been Ortho longer than I've been alive, & married to an ROCOR priest for almost just as long (one of my first childhood memories is going to her wedding shower behind the ROCOR church in Boston). Both her husband & brother finished Holy Trinity Seminary. Since childhood she's had the leaders of ROCOR, past & present in her home. Neither she, nor her family that I know of, have changed their stance on ROCOR, MP, etc, in all the time they've been in ROCOR. Considering the people who influenced them most were among the up & up in the ROCOR administration (did someone mention Met. Philaret?) I can't see how you could possibly think that their ideas are anywhere near new. As far as knowing the events that happened at HTM, I would say she knows better & more than most people. Won't go into why or how, as that is her story to tell if & when she wants, not mine. I can go on & on, but I won't bother, since no one will probably listen. Wanted to just once more bang my head against the wall & say that there IS NO SUCH THING AS THE "NEW ROCOR."
As far as grammar... it's not grammar Matushka Ann commented on, but spelling.
& now that I've vented my spleen (or need for nicotine, whichever), I will go now.
Ania

[Seraphim Reeves]

aml,

The thing you originally posted makes no sense, either logically or gramatically. ("Deflocked"??)

Are you related to Anastasios of OC.net? (sorry, inside joke)

It's also bad theology. The late Met. Philaret said, in my father's livingroom and in Fr. Panteleimon's presence, that he would NEVER say that another Orthodox Church lacks grace.

Taking for granted your honesty in repeating this, it changes nothing; the material fact is that it was under St.Philaret that the anathema was issued, and that ROCOR was itself not in communion with any of the parties that could be construed as falling under it. Not to mention (as OOD points out) ROCOR was most certainly in communion with the GOC of Greece, whose views on this matter were very well formed at this time.

I do agree however, there was a real issue of obedience involved in the situation you mentioned.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery has another "tradition," that of shucking off bishops as they become inconvenient. I lost track a few jurisdictions ago, but they left the Greek Archdiocese

Were they wrong to leave the GOA? No good reason for doing this? Their leaving, and ROCOR's reception of them, would seem to say something of just how ROCOR viewed the GOA, would it not?

Likewise, Fr. Gregory left the Antiochians for ROCOR, ROCOR for Archbishop Chrysostomos of Athens, Abp. Chrysostomos for Met. Kallinikos of the Lone Islands, and left Met. Kallinikos for the defrocked bishop Valentine of Suzdal.

• Was he wrong for leaving the Antiochians? Was the ROCOR wrong for receiving him, knowing full well why he (and others like him) were leaving "world Orthodoxy" at this time?

• The situation of why he left the ROCOR is parallel to the reasons of Metropolitan Valentin; the Cyprianite union of '94.

So far, as far as I'm concerned, we have "two moves" which are totally justified (or at least understandable.)

• As far as the situation with the Greek Old Calendarists, this is a messier subject. I can understand the concern, but from what I know, I will only say I believe Vladyka was justified in acting as he did. He certainly wasn't "booted" out of the GOC of Chrysostmos II, but was released. I do not want to say any more on this point, as it would not serve this conversation, but could cause unnecessary ill will and misunderstandings elsewhere on this forum.

• Vladyka is received into the ROAC. This is perfectly understandable, given that Vladyka for decades had his home in the ROCOR. It is perfectly understandable that he would ask to pass into the care of those who constituted a confessing remnant of the ROCOR.

IOW, examining the facts, I don't see where the food for scandal is. If there is a scandal, it is the times we're living in, and the defections, left and right, of those who ought to have known better.

It's true the the Moscow Patriarchate had defrocked bishop Valentine, but I don't know if that's before he left them or after. At the time he was received, I understood, rightly or otherwise, that the defrocking had been considered retalitory for leaving.

Let's not be coy - the truth is his being defrocked one way or another by the MP, before or after being received into ROCOR, would not have mattered to the ROCOR heirarchy at the time - because they did not at that time recognize the legitimacy of the MP as they now do. They are not in a position to do anything, let alone "defrock" someone for not wanting any part in their schism any longer.

But he didn't leave ROCOR over Met. Cyprian and his ecclesiology --I beleive we were already in communion with met. Cyprian when Bp. Valentine sought to join ROCOR.

This is simply not true. All of your other conclusions which are a consequence of this error, are equally invalid.

(Then) Archmandrite Valentin and his parish of St.Constantine the Great were received into the ROCOR from the MP in March of 1990. It was in fact the first parish to leave the MP and join the ROCOR - he was a pioneer amongst those in the modern era who had come to see the MP for what it was (a Soviet establishment), and was joyfully received into the ROCOR, which at that time still did not recognize the legitimacy of the MP and was not adverse to receiving people from it with repentence, with or without "formal releases" (which are irrelevent - that's like expecting a release from say, the RC archdiocese of Toronto, for a latin priest who abandons papism and wants to join the Orthodox Church). Even into the 90's, the ROCOR was doing very "un-world-Orthodoxy" things (such as receiving a parish of the OCA, despite it's wishes, into the fold!) like this.

Archmandrite Valentin was raised to the episcopate by the ROCOR in February of 1991.

The Cyprianite union, occured three years after this, in 1994.

Thus, your speculation that Metropolitan Valentin severed relations with Metropolitan Vitaly was due to some other reason by way of chronological necessity is false.

As an aside...the period surrounding the time of (then) Archmandrite Valentin's reception into the ROCOR is an interesting one. In 1991, the world-Orthodoxers continued on the way of apostacy, by the signing of the Chambersy Agreement between the Antiochians and the Monophysites, which if you read it's contents, constitutes a union between the two parties in everything but name (policies for concelebrations, recognition of each other's mysteries, advocacy of mixed marriages, shared use of temples, etc is outlined...everything but the merger of overlapping diocese' and territories is mandated by this document; communion, but not administrative unity.) This was greeted with silence by the "Patriarchs of world Orthodoxy", and even celebration.

In 1994, something terrible occured - just as the ecumenists were making quite plain their defection from truth, the ROCOR officially adopted as it's "ecclessiology" the teachings of the Cyprianites, who had been expelled by the very Greek Orthodox Church (GOC) that ROCOR had to that time remained in communion with (GOC of Chrysostmos II). This teaching, coined by it's opponents as the "holy heretics" doctrine, is canonically absurd and contrary to the mind of the Church. However, it sadly fits in with trends that had began in ROCOR, rather quiety, during the days of Metropolitan Vitaly's presiding over the ROCOR in the late 80's.

Sadly, the course which began in '94 is only steam rolling faster. In fact it's moving so fast, that even the Cyprianites are scandalized (writing letters to ROCOR wondering out loud just what on earth they were doing!). With the matter of the ecumenists being recognized unequivocally as genuine Churches, the foundation was laid for further changes in discipline...with the end goal of making ROCOR an integrated part of "Orthodox officialdom", an end which seems desirable to many in ROCOR, for reasons which we can only speculate on.

It is hard for me, to not see providence at work in the reception of Metropolitan Valentin into the ROCOR in the early 90's, just as the defection of "world Orthodoxy" was being confirmed decisively (for in '65, what we had was simply an implicit mutual recognition between the EP and the Papists by the so called "lifting of anathemas"; now in '91 we have the organic union of the Antiochian Patriarchate and the Monophysites occuring). Given the change in course that ROCOR would take short years after this Monophysitic Unia (which for anyone who was in doubt about the real situation of the ecumenists, stands as a monument to their defection from the Church), Metropolitan Valentin's coming into ROCOR and receiving the means to continue perpetuating the Russian heirarchy and fully preserve the Russian Orthodox tradition, strikes me as a mercy from God.

Now ROCOR is poised to join the MP. I think it's very naive (and no one in ROCOR is actually calling for this) to believe that when this happens, the MP is going to cut ties with the Antiochians and those who have patted them on the back (or simply remained indifferent towards) for their defection. In short, ROCOR is not going to simply be wedding the MP - it will be wedding itself to ecumenism, and the Monophysite heresy/schism it is in communion with (a reality not simply manifested by the Antiochian situation, but also with how all in the ecumenist-schism speak of and fraternize with said Monophysites; receiving them as Orthodox heirarchs, joining in public prayers and liturgical celebrations, and even turning a blind eye to the "economic" giving of communion to said persons when they visit their parishes.)

Of course, depending on who you ask in the new-ROCOR (save perhaps the likes of Bp.Gabriel of Manhatten and a few hold outs like him), this has already materially occured; since we're told repeatedly that the ROCOR has always been in communion with the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchates (though one might want to tell Patriarch Pavle this, when he openly denounced the ROCOR to Patriarch Alexis II several years back.)

Waiting anxiously for ad hominem "rebuttals" to the above...(and even more anxiously, for real rebuttals...but I won't hold my breath)

Seraphim

[bogoliubtsy]

Seraphim,

I'd prefer not to keep having to make references to this, but it still seems called for. You (and I, for that matter) were not in the Church Abroad during the time of Metropolitan Philaret. Matushka Ann was, and is therefore much more qualified to speak on these matters. From what seems to be her contact with the older ROCOR clergy, it seems obvious that she understands the mind of the Church Abroad. You, on the other hand, are not an Orthodox Christian. This is not an ad hominem attaack, it is a fact which in a sense disqualifies you from speculating on these matters. I might add that you are taking quite a Protestant approach to these churchly matters- proof-texting old documents and dredging up a past you don't understand to recreate it in the image of Met. Valentine's synod. Whereas you only have the "scripture", Matushka Ann (and Ania) have the Tradition- those ideas and beliefs that were passed down to them from the clergy who really understood these matters. Their understanding of these "documents" of the past were formed by the words and actions of those around them- the writers of these documents who, of course, were qualified to explain the heart of them. That's the Orthodox approach.

[Seraphim Reeves]

I'd prefer not to keep having to make references to this, but it still seems called for. You (and I, for that matter) were not in the Church Abroad during the time of Metropolitan Philaret. Matushka Ann was, and is therefore much more qualified to speak on these matters

Then there should be absolutely no difficulty in correcting what I have said. It should be glaringly easy, since I am so obviously devoid of understanding.

Seraphim

[Lounger]

Since we were not there, I guess we cannot have opinions about any history at all Peter?

Ania's a self-declared liberal that brags of her sins and violating the fast while the other has long been known as pro-MP. Not exactly neutral witnesses!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Someone connected to the "mind of ROCOR" or even having a rudimentary knowledge of Orthodoxy does not call our ecclesiology an "AID's awareness theory" – this is really Sunday school material.

[Daniel]

I'd prefer not to keep having to make references to this, but it still seems called for. You (and I, for that matter) were not in the Church Abroad during the time of Metropolitan Philaret. Matushka Ann was, and is therefore much more qualified to speak on these matters. From what seems to be her contact with the older ROCOR clergy, it seems obvious that she understands the mind of the Church Abroad.

For what's worth,

I was taught by a (now reposed) Ukrainian priest, who grew up in the Church Abroad, that ROCOR is THE Russian Orthodox Church, not the MP.