Another (dumb) ROCOR question

[Methodius]

The fallacy which has gained acceptance is the one that the MP is not one of the three parts of the Russian Church. St. John of San Francisco thought it was...and like I said before, that's good enough for me.

Let me play devil's advocate (not literally calling anyone a devil here) and remind people of 3 important points:

1. St. John also headed the Church of France and was in communion after that too, but ROCOR is no longer in communion with them. That seem a flaw in judging who to be in communion with today based on 60+ years ago.

2. Also remember that the OCA broke away from ROCOR, but the same people condemning ROAC are not condemning OCA?

3. And lastly I quote from a post of Julianna's:

An Excerpt from a Letter of Saint Philaret to Archbishop Anthony of Geneva:

November 16/29, 1977

I consider it my duty to point out to you, Vladyka, that your assertion that we must thank the Serbian Church for her treatment of us, I fully accept, but only as regards her past the glorious past of the Serbian Church. Yes, of course, we must hold the names of their Holinesses Patriarchs Demetrius and Barnabas in grateful memory for their precious support of the Church Abroad at that time when she had no place to lay her headThere is no denying that a certain honor is due the Serbian Church for her refusing to condemn our Church Abroad at the parasynagogue in Moscow in 1971, and also on later occasions when Moscow again raised the matter.

But then, on the other hand, she did participate in the aforementioned parasynagogue, when it elected Pimen, and the Serbian hierarchs did not protest against this absolutely anti-canonical election, when he who had already been chosen and appointed by the God-hating regime was elected. Our Sobor of 1971 did not, and could not, recognize Pimen, whereas the Serbian Patriarchate recognized and does recognize him, addressing him as Patriarch, and is in full communion with him. And thus she opposes us directly, for we attempt at all times to explain to the Free World that the Soviet Patriarchate is not the genuine representative and head of the much-suffering Russian Church. But the Serbian Church recognizes her as such, and by so doing commits a grave sin against the Russian Church and the Russian Orthodox people

How can there be any talk here of a special gratitude to her? Oh, if the Serbian Church would, while recognizing our righteousness, likewise directly and openly, boldly recognize the unrighteousness of the Soviets!

Well then there would truly be something for us to thank her for! But now as it is, while extending one hand to us, she extends her other hand to our opponents and the enemies of God and the Church. If it pleases you having shut your eyes to this sad reality to thank the Serbs for such podvigs of theirs, then that is your affair, but I am not a participant in this expression of gratitude.

How dangerous are compromises in matters of principle! They render people powerless in defense of the Truth. Why is it that the Serbian Patriarchate cannot resolve to sever communion with the Soviet hierarchy? Because she herself is travelling along the same gloomy and dangerous path of compromise with the God-hating Communists. True, she has not progressed along that path to the extent that the Soviet hierarchy has, and she attempts to preach and defend the faith, but if the shades and nuances here are quite different, yet, in principle, the matter stands on one and the same level

• Metropolitan Philaret

Calling MP churches parasynogogues and anti-canonical; saying being in communion with the MP a grave sin against the Russian Church; declaring that the Soviet Patriarchate is not the genuine representative of the much-suffering Russian Church sounds like not seeing the MP as the Mother Church.

Just some thoughts to think about while we discuss this in a Christian manner.

[Justin Kissel]

Since I was careless and negligent earlier in my discussion of Saint Justin and his position regarding certain Churches, I'd like to say a few words of clarification.

First, in the entire document (On the Summoning of the Great Council), while Saint Justin often rebukes both Constantinople and Moscow for their political, and even sometimes "neo-papal," motives and methods, he nowhere says that they are without grace or are wholly outside of the Church. If he believed them to be without grace or outside the Church, this would have been one of the most obvious places to say so since Saint Justin was discussing reasons why the Council being proposed by Constantinople and others should not be held. Here is what Saint Justin does say about Constantinople:

• Constantinople has "neo-papal ambitions" and "neo-papist intentions"

• She could possibly "bring the whole of Orthodoxy to the brink of the abyss, as once occurred at the pseudo-council of Florence"

• She could possibly "canonize and dogmatize particular historical forms which, at a given moment, might transform themselves from wings into heavy chains, binding the Church and her transfiguring presence in the world."

• And Saint Justin concludes: "Let us be frank: the conduct of the representatives of Constantinople in the last decades has been characterized by the same unhealthy restlessness, by the same spiritually ill condition as that which brought the Church to the betrayal and disgrace of Florence in the 15th Century."

And what does this mean? That Constantinople was unhealthy (in 1977)? Yes, of course. That it was on the wrong road, and leading people astray? Yes, of course. That it was not part of the Church? No. Saint Justin constantly speaks in the future tense. He speaks of where the Church is going, of where it is headed: he is sounding a warning, not voicing a final condemnation (as so many traditionalists today seem to read into his words). And what further does Saint Justin say of Constantinople? This admittedly "neo-papist" Church? He says:

"I bow in reverence before the age-old achievements of the Great Church of Constantinople, and before her present cross which is neither small nor easy, which, according to the nature of things, is the cross of the entire Church - for, as the Apostle says, "When one member suffers, the whole body suffers." Moreover, I acknowledge the canonical rank and first place in honour of Constantinople among the local Orthodox Churches, which are equal in honour and rights.

And what does Saint Justin say of Moscow? Are they without grace? Are they not a Church? He said that the delegates did not "represent nor express the true spirit and attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church and its faithful flock," but again, nowhere does he call the MP graceless or heretical or not a Church (though undoubtedly he thought some parts of the MP, and the EP, corrupted).

Second, taking up my original point, Saint Justin does not invite the OCA as apostates, schismatics, or graceless heterodox. He does not speak of them as being outside the Church, but mentions them at the same time as ROCOR and the Japanese Church. And not only does he mention them in the same company as these Churches, but he praises them! Saint Justin said: "On the other hand, the Churches apostolically zealous in missionary work, such as the American Metropolia, the Russian Church Abroad, the Japanese Church and others are not allowed a single representative!"

Did Saint Justin see these Churches as all being on the same (canonical, Orthodox) footing? Probably not. But then he didn't condemn any of them either, he didn't question the authority of any of them to participate in the council as representatives of Orthodoxy, and he didn't distinquish between the "good" Americans and the "bad" Americans (he elsewhere says, for instance, that there are good American Theologians without naming specific names).

I guess this is the main issue I have with ROAC, claims that are made about who was in communion with whom, and who broke off with whom at what point, and so forth, just don't add up, they just don't match the historical record. Saint Justin is just one example of someone who stands in the way of certain historical constructs that I've seen. Fr. Seraphim Rose is another person who seems to derail some of the claims, though I've spoken of that elsewhere and don't intend on reading back through hundreds of pages to find the information again.

[fserafim]

Dear Friends in Christ,

It's good to back (I hope!) and I thank you.

I am not an apologist for the MP, nor am I going to get involved in logic or rhetoric. If you accept my 'feelings', an unfortunate word, - you do or you don't: but I don't know how to express my impression of Holy Russia in any other way.

Anyway, God willing, I will continue to collect and translate the lives and writings of contemporary MP saints such as St Serafim of Vyritsa and his Matushka Schemanun Serafima, Bl Matrona , St Serafim of Sofia (MP hieararch), Schemanun Nila and others.

My website was closed down without warning by a merger or bankrutpcy and I have now tranfered to another. My site should be up with a newsletter for July in 10 days.

Yours in Christ,

Fr Serafim
www.fatherserafim.info (not yet!)

[Protopriest Dionysi]

I guess this is the main issue I have with ROAC, claims that are made about who was in communion with whom, and who broke off with whom at what point, and so forth, just don't add up, they just don't match the historical record. Saint Justin is just one example of someone who stands in the way of certain historical constructs that I've seen. Fr. Seraphim Rose is another person who seems to derail some of the claims, though I've spoken of that elsewhere and don't intend on reading back through hundreds of pages to find the information again.

Fr. Justin and Fr. Seraphim are two voices, yes. As you have seen however, there are others that disagree. There are saints who refused to even call them Orthodox, and they died because of this (e.g. St. Basil of Kineshma). There are personalities (like those you mentioned) in the Church. These personalities (clergy and lay, some even Saints) are important guidposts in the Church. But, we should be joing for our love of Christ and want to be in His Church part of His body. So, the CHurch and her teaching should be at the centre of this. What does she teach and dictate in a given situation. Is communion with heretics alright? Can a man made institution like the Soviet Church, be the or part of the Church?