ROCOR vs. ?

[Justin Kissel]

Ahh... but there were concelebrations with the Serbs during the 70's, of which Fr. Seraphim Rose talked about; there are statements (even from the 60's) in which it can be shown that the ROCOR hierachs didn't deny the grace in world Orthodoxy, ROCOR clergy and bishops (including St. John, from what Fr. Alexander Lebedeff says) were giving communion to new calendarists, and there are of course other things... I'm sure we could swap quotes and historical examples/happenings all day, much like Protestants do with scriptures! (I say this to my own shame, not directed at you)

But, regarding the anathema, here's what Archbishop Vitaly said in 1984:

By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected our flock from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner or later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but de facto it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale.

Just about everything I've read on the anathema says roughly what the above says: that the entire world had better pay attention to what was going on, that ROCOR was trying to sound a wake up call, but that the anathema, in itself, had a purely local character: that it effected only those within ROCOR; and I might add, it effected them only after an ecclesiastical trial: the anathema was a canon or law or guideline, not a condemnation or verdict. It is perhaps true that the anathema is plain regarding what it speaks of, but it is also plain that not just anyone and everyone, not even a bishop or archibishop by himself, has the right to use the anathema to condemn someone else. Because of the history of ROCOR, because of all the breaks in union and reformations and so forth (much like the East in general), she's always been very conciliar-oriented. One bishop does not have the power to go off on his own, shooting from the hip at those heretics he perceives.

I can understand Peter's point. If heresy is heresy, and should be condemned outright; and if ROCOR was ok back then but has slidden down the hill into ecumenism and apostasy now; then surely it can be shown from the official ROCOR statements that they denied the grace of world Orthodoxy, refused all communion with new calendarists, etc. back in the 60's? If this can't be done--when it's admitted that such statements are not made in the "official" documents, then one has to ask: why not? If ROCOR was Orthodox back then, and you must break communion with heretics to be Orthodox, then why would ROCOR be so hesistant to officially (another word for "publically and authoritatively") say the things that the TOC says they believed? Are there epistles from the synod talking about cessation of all relations with (what we might today call) world Orthodoxy? If not, why not?

EDIT-- And no, I'm not getting hung up on being "official," but think of it this way. Let's say that certain members of a football team said that they were getting a new star player. They refused to issue a press release or hold a press conference on the matter, they refused to include his name on the roster given to the public, they refused to put his name in the team literature being printed for the season, etc. Yet some people keep insisting "he's coming!". Well... it might very well be the convinced opinion of those people that he's coming, but if so, then why won't the team acknowledge it to everyone? This guy is a star: it'd be the type of thing you'd think they would make very explicit and talk about openly, yet they don't. The same goes with the ROCOR situation, IMO. If ROCOR did do what you say they did, then why didn't they say they were doing it in their official documents? What does that reluctance to say things openly and publically signify?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Whether its true or not, issuing an ANATHEMA is not at the level of a simple wake up call. An anathema is exactly the same as issuing death certificates. Surley, at the VERY LEAST, Athengoras and his successors fall under this anathema! Would you deny this? And what does this say about those in communion with them?

EDIT: After all, are you trying to redifine what an anathema is into some kind of a wrist slapping with the qoute of one Saint? We all know exactly what an anathema is and have no need for it to be redifined or some revisionism to be applied. An anathema is never abnd can never be a "local thing".

But again, I am not trying to say that there were no cases of communion with the new-calendarists in the 60's and 70's, someone may even be able to show cases where our synod has done this even this PAST month! As I said, was about as official as I can see, that the ROCOR broke of all ties in 1965. When and where their were exceptions to this, who knows.

Nor have I said that the ROCOR has slipped into a state of apostasy, that is certainly and completley outside my place to say.

Nor am I saying the ROCOR has ever officially declared a state of no Grace among the new-calendar communion.

I was simply saying, that the ROCOR was HEAVILY leaning in the direction of our Synod (and others) who do not recognize Grace in the new-calendar communion.

And I am also saying that that position has significantly changed since that time.

Now you could argue the point, but you would first have to explain why it is that the ROCOR would consecrate our bishops and Mathewite bishops, and later declare that they recognize us, commune with us all the way up to 1994, and issue the anathema which may not at the time, but which I believe NOW covers every new-caledarist group.

Why is it so hard to say that the ROCOR was heavily leaning in our direction? I don't think we are really disagreeing on the larger issues, we are just tugging on some of the finer points.

I would also like to ask in a friendly tone: what is the purpose of all of this? In a sentence, what are you trying to say?

[Justin Kissel]

Greetings OOD!

Nor have I said that the ROCOR has slipped into a state of apostasy, that is certainly and completley outside my place to say.

I apologize, I was thinking of a charge of another group, ROAC (or at least a webpage from another group).

Now you could argue the point, but you would first have to explain why it is that the ROCOR would consecrate our bishops and Mathewite bishops, and later declare that they recognize us, commune with us all the way up to 1994, and issue the anathema which may not at the time, but which I believe NOW covers every new-caledarist group.

Well, I couldn't give an answer to that a shot, I just don't know enough about it.

Why is it so hard to say that the ROCOR was heavily leaning in our direction? I don't think we are really disagreeing on the larger issues, we are just tugging on some of the finer points.

Well, ok, let me say this, I agree with you, generally speaking the ROCOR was much more conservative in the past (more towards the rigorist/zealot tendency) than they are now. Even men such as Fr. Seraphim, according to his (admittedly flawed) biography, changed over the course of his lifetime and became less conservative towards the end.

I would also like to ask in a friendly tone: what is the purpose of all of this? In a sentence, what are you trying to say?

I'm trying to defend the idea that you can be a "moderate traditionalist" and still be faithful to ROCOR and to God himself. Sometimes I feel like I can't say a positive thing about certain groups without being attacked for being "pro-MP" or "pro-world-Orthodoxy". I guess I'm a bit defensive, unfortunately. I will try to work on that, I do not think anyone at this forum tries to maliciously attack anyone else.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

I have an observation to make:

There is not a person, bishop, or even Saint, who could justify or say that an unprepented heretic has Grace - because it is well known in the Church through all the ages that they don't. Agreed.

We can also then agree that their ordinations are not ordinations. And that their communion, and the communion of the priests under him are not communion. (Note: In case anyone doesn't know, a priest cannot serve Liturgy and communion without being under a bishop, and this is because the Grace of God flows through the Bishop). Their baptism are not Baptisms. This is also well documented and witnessed to by the Greatest saints of the Church and all of the Synods. There can be no question!!!!

Now I can go on further still and include those in communion with heretics because this is a spiritual fact well demonstrated in the Church also, but I have no need to do so for the purpose of my point....which I am getting to if you are still with me.

So then, in light of this spiritual fact which nobody dare deny, who can justify communion with heretics since doing so inevitably puts one in a position of accepting these dead forms and empty "mysteries" and destroying the salvation of the Christs flock? WHO CAN SERIOUSLY EVEN TALK ABOUT JOINING THE MP?

So it is not a question of joining, it is a question of running, the only debate is, how far shall we run. And the debate changes as we see the new-calendarist ship sink further and further, and flames appear with screaming people running across her deck.

In this, traditionalists should all recognize eachother as having a very significant and mutal agreement. And in time, all will become clear. But as it is with a large ship which just slipped below the waves, there is a tremendous current of water that follows the ship to the bottom and sucks under water with it, all those stranded who are to close, and who would otherwise have been saved.

EDIT: And one thing is for sure, since the 1930's, year after year, spiritual disaster after spiritual disaster, the GOC is being proved right. I wonder how many in the 1930's agreed there was no Grace, with just the calendar change??? But as it was with the Filioque, which must have also seemed like a small heresy, time is showing the extend of the corrosion of the ships hull. And heresy is being piled on top of heresy.

[bogoliubtsy]

Toward the end of the fourteenth century, another heresy appeared in Novgorod: the Strigol'niki. The etymology of this word comes from teh "cutting" or "shearing". Were they barbers, tonsurers, or did they preach and/or practice the shaving of beards? No written records survive to explain the term or the details of their teachings. All that is known from the Chronicles and other documents is that the strigol'niki protested against the fees bishops would charge clergy candidates for ordination. This practice, which contradicted the canons, was common in Greece, but the Russian zealots could not believe that their original teachers of faith could be in breach of the canons. When the Ecumenical Patriarch cleared Metropolitan Alexis of the charges of simony, even though the Bisop ot Tver' had reported to them that the Metropolitan had been charging a tax for ordination, a zealous monk, Adkindin, was sent to Constantinople to investigate the situation in Greece. The Greeks wiggled out of the embarrassing situation by telling him that they did not charge for ordination, but merely collected the cost of the expenses incurred in ordination. Akindin took this to mean that ordination fees were condemned by the Greeks. In his report to the Moscow Grand Duke, he condemned the practice as simony and declared that a priest thus ordained was not a canonical priest. The strigol'niki concluded from this that the whole Russian clergy was canonically invalid. Subsequently, they rejected all the sacraments expcept baptism(because it could be administered by laity), as well as the historical Church after apostolic times.

There appears to have been a split in their ranks: the more moderate ones returned to the Church in the 15th century...

[bogoliubtsy]

The above was taken from Dmitry Pospielovsky's book The Orthodox Church in the History of Russia.

[Savva24]

Well, ok, let me say this, I agree with you, generally speaking the ROCOR was much more conservative in the past (more towards the rigorist/zealot tendency) than they are now. Even men such as Fr. Seraphim, according to his (admittedly flawed) biography, changed over the course of his lifetime and became less conservative towards the end.
[/quote]

Dear Pardosis,
I don't think it is so much that ROCOR has become steadily less conservative over time. There have always been a wide range of opionions in her and in different generations more of an emphasis is expressed according to the times and who is in charge. Met. Anastasi would not touch the Greek Old Calendarists in his day. Metropolitan Philaret chose to give them validity and moved closer to them. I think also that our most zealot years were during the last years of Metropolitan Philaret's years, after many actions in Constantinople became too sickening and a strong push towards the right by factions such as what is now HOCNA and Bishop Gregory Grabbe. Personally, I trust our bishops and if they think that it is time for a softening towards the MP, I follow them, after all Communism is dead and they have canonized the New Martyrs.

In Christ,

Nicholas