Moderator: Mark Templet
These schisms and cults reflect poorly on ROCOR and bring its credibility into question. So, just a note to the cultists: Without official sanction, in the minds of the faithful your cult is and will be increasingly superstitio not religio, bearing eccentric and outlaw character. Simply consider it, for you must.
Sincerely,
Joseph
Nicholas, you are with the word "Anathema" like a puppy with a new rubber ball... be careful it doesn't bounce away from you or pop from too much chewing.
I’d like to mention a post that I wrote quite a while ago, regarding St. John (under whom the later Met. Philaret served.) and the time he spent in China, here it is:
”However, his (St. John’s) superior, Bsp. Victor, still commemorated Alexey I. St. John & Bsp. Victor served together, each commemorating their own leaders…
….Also in Dad's possession is a copy of the Cheen Pravoslavia (Rite of Orthodoxy) that was used in Shanghai from 1946-48 (St. John departed Shanghai in 1949). On it, at the Mnogaya Letia, (Many Years), were the names of the patriarchs at that time, including Alexey I. Also included were Met. Anastasy, Bsp. Victor, & St. John.”
Full post is at: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... ight=#6560
At that time at that Rite of Orthodoxy, surely they weren’t proclaiming Anathema to each other, and surely St. John (who even the great an infallible ROAC revere as a saint), being the great spiritual man that he was, would not have served with someone he considered without grace… He wouldn’t have needed to look at it on the books, he would have just known.
Careful who you cast under Anathema… if I tried long enough I could probably find a way to canonically classify my neighbor’s cats under some Anathema that has come up in the past 2000 years.
In another thread, I spoke of those talking about the ROCA "never declaring the MP as graceless". It is not this statement, in itself, that I meant to speak against in my post. If one is willing to say "Such and such a bishop, and such and such at a council, spoke positively of the MP," then I am perfectly willing to discuss this (since obviously some people did speak well of the MP). However, when these scattered quotes turn into a claim that the ROCA always thought the MP had grace, that's where I must disagree vehemently.
Why do I make such a big issue out of it? Well, if you wish to say that the MP had grace, and that Bishop so and so in 1974 thought so, then that's fine and we can discuss such a claim. However, if you wish to say that all bishops thought the MP had grace, and that Bishop so and so from 1974 was merely articulating what the rest of the Church believed, then how can their be a discussion? We will end up in the same position that the Fundamentalists are mostly in on their message boards: we'll be talking past each other. There can't be any productive discussion in such a case since we disagree on the essential and underlying premises of the discussion.
I spoke of making a decision in another thread, and indeed the ROCA must. But this decision cannot be based on an artificially constructed history. Whether the MP had or has grace are two different subjects, both of which need to be discussed. Also needing to be discussed is to what extent the ROCA saw there being a difference between the "pious people and priests" of the MP, and the "hierarchy" of the MP. I believe that it is signficant that, while some members or ROCA were bold enough to speak favorably of the lower clergy and laity in the MP, none spoke favorably of the hierarchy of the MP; contrarily, many spoke in a strongly negative way of the hierarchy. The ramifications of this dichotomy of criticism needs to be explored before we can go head-long into discussions of whether the MP (as a whole, then or now) has grace.
Perhaps these discussions have already taken place: if they have, I haven't seen them (and I've read a good deal of both pro-MP-union and anti-MP-union literature over the past two years). How can we proceed if we don't have the fundamental issues of the discussion agreed upon--or at least discussed exhaustively? And certainly we can and should point to the past for help at getting at an answer. Yet, we should not take from the past what simply was not there. Personally, I'd like to see an end of us beating a "lifeless horse," as mentioned by Ania. However, that end would come through, IMO, a deeper discussion, not leaving off discussion altogether. Those ends would be the result of entirely different means (ie. getting the underlying premises agreed upon and pre-suppositions exposed), and would necessitate that people on both sides stop posting long lists of proof-quotes.
PS. I certainly don't say that I am the one who should be engaging in such discussions...
This issue of whether the MP has grace or is graceless is most
likely a very important if not critical issue for the ROAC and
other "like" jurisdictions. It would be in their "best interest"
to make such a statement, therefore, their "existence" is
justified. If tommorrow, some proof comes out and indeed
it is proven that the MP has grace, then why is there a need for
a ROAC? They can just come back into the MP. But then there
are political issues, bad blood, etc., that would have to be dealt
with. It is much easier just to cast stones....
I am amazed at the depth of knowledge that those who are
part of the ROAC or other like "jurisdictions", when it comes
to writings on the anathema's, heresies, etc. I wonder how
these guys find the time to research and read these things.
As for myself, I find it challenging enough, to do daily prayers,
read the lives of saints, early church fathers and other
spiritual writings in order to "save" myself!!! I don't have time
to look into writings or issues that bishop so-and-so said this,
or that. If I did that and spent the time that it appears some
on this board do, I wouldn't have anytime for my own spiritual
edification.
But then again, I am a simpleton....
With humble bow,
Rd. Chrysostomos
Chrysostomos wrote:If tommorrow, some proof comes out and indeed it is proven that the MP has grace, then why is there a need for
a ROAC?
Not a hypothetical we need to worry about. I concur with the words of St. Philaret on this one.
I have been reading Justin's posts on this topic with great interest, because they strike me as coming from a very honest place. I think he's on to something, something I've also been willing to conceed - that ROCOR's words/deeds on this topic were not always unambiguous, if they ever were.
As time goes on, I'm coming to not think of the break between ROCOR and what would come to be called ROAC (or the later split of Metropolitan Vitaly and those who followed him under the banner of the ROCiE) as a case of ROAC per se holding to the unambiguous "old ROCOR" opinion (or at least that it was a position not undermined constantly by no shortage of ambiguities), but as the culmination of a development of awareness that was going to have to end ugly; between those who believed the issues of ecumenism and sergianism were serious errors which had now rendered previously Orthodox Churches false, and those who basically did not take them very seriously at all (or understood them not to be very wide spread errors - at the least a few steps back from the position of Metropolitan Philaret, though arguably a total repudiation of his expressed views, and the promulgation of the anathema he supervised).
Those two outlooks could only strain (pretend?) to live under the same roof for so long, and after swinging in one direction (union with the Greek GOC, St.Philaret, etc.), things swang in the other direction to their current situation (ROCOR approaching re-union with the MP, and unambiguously asserting that it is an integral part of "world Orthodoxy").
Seraphim
No TV, no sports, no board games, no parties... what else is an egghead like me suppose to do with his time but read read read (after prayers, of course