Xenia,
Code: Select all
On the contrary, I do not believe that we are merely "chasing the wind" in our discussion of this topic. Nor do I believe that we are merely "listening to ourselves." I have listened very carefully to what a number of people have said on the topic of Donatism and the ROCOR dissenters, and I have learned some things. One of the central issues hinges on whether or not the Moscow Patriarchate, and their associates in the ROCOR-Laurus, have truly [i]repented[/i] of ecumenism, and Sergianism, the long-standing MP collaboration with the atheistic Soviet state. True repentence involves a change of heart and behavior, a turning away from the sin of betraying the Church for the sake of a secular, Godless authority. Why, for example, has the MP (and Mr. Putin) not condemned and destroyed the abominable tomb of Lenin, just as the Emperors of Byzantium cast down the idolatrous temples and oracles of the pagans in the time of the Donatists?
As nearly as I can tell, it is still quite possible, even probable, that the MP and the ROCOR-Laurus hierarchs are working [i]with and for the KGB (FSB)[/i] to serve the agenda of a the secular Russian state. Is this repentance? And, if we are not sure about the repentance and grace of the Moscow Patriarchate, is it not better to err on the side of caution? We can do this without denying the repentance or grace of the MP, as the Donatists did. Can we not rightfully say, with St. Cyril of Kazan, that [i]we do not know [/i]whether the MP/Rocor-Laurus has grace, since a general Ecumenical Council of the free Church has never issued a ruling on this subject?
This is what I can take away from our discussion. The Donatists were schimsmatics because they were condemned by a general Council of the true Orthodox Church. But where is the Sobornost within the contemporary Orthodox Church on the issue of Sergianism? Was there even a canonical vote by the ROCOR Synod in 2006 confirming the Act of Canonical Comunion with Moscow? My understanding is that the Synod did not fully convene or even agree on this major decision. Bishop Daniel was not present (and issued a public statement condemning the Act of Canonical Communion prior to the All Diaspora Council), and Bishop Agafangel clearly did not agree with the Act. Is that true sobornost? Was the full Synod convoked to rule on this decision?