ROCA and the Greek Old Calendarists

[bogoliubtsy]

ROCOR has never been as extreme as the various Greek groups. ROCOR, in its past, has had a number of new calendar parishes. ROCOR was born from historical circumstances, quite different from the birth of the Greek groups. ROCOR wasn't formed as a "synod in resistance", unlike the Greek groups. I think this has helped to form a different character than the one you'll find with the Greeks. ROCOR has never denied the grace of the new calendar Churches and has always maintained "de facto" communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. ROCOR, like many jurisdictions, has made mistakes which are not necessarily reflections of the mind of ROCOR. Perhaps the whole Greek debacle is one of those mistakes. Perhaps ordaining Russian clergy is another (as many a ROCOR priest would attest).

[Aaron]

Justin wrote:

However, Cyprian went beyond this, and said that you could be a heretic and still have grace-filled sacraments. You could be in heresy and still part of the body of Christ.

Justin also wrote:

His position is not even one of agnosticism, it is an affirmation that heretics do in fact have grace-filled sacraments. This is the ecclesiology that ROCOR, in 1994, declared was their own when they said: "The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian adheres wholly to the exact same ecclesiological and dogmatic principals as our Russian Church Outside of Russia."

I am, as most of you know, not Orthodox (yet) but have been observing all of the current happenings going on with the ROCOR. As an outsider looking in, I have to admit that what Justin has brought to our attention even bothers me! I honestly do not know what to make of it.

Justin wrote:

This is something that gravely worries me.

Me too....

How does everyone on the board who is part of/associates with the ROCA feel about this?

In Christ,
Aaron

[bogoliubtsy]

I feel great about "world orthodoxy" having grace. I'm not a donatist and they've been condemned by no ecumenical council. Show me where, in their past, ROCOR has officially denied the grace of new calendar churches!

[Justin Kissel]

I think a distinction needs to be made between "new calendarist" and "ecumenist" when speaking of the ROCOR position. I gotta go for now, though will save the thread to disk and hopefully say more tomorrow

[Daniel]

I feel great about "world orthodoxy" having grace. I'm not a donatist and they've been condemned by no ecumenical council. Show me where, in their past, ROCOR has officially denied the grace of new calendar churches!

I hope this doesn't sound snide or anything but....

Whould you concider membership in the WCC or NCC to amount to apostasy? and Why?

If you feel that what the WCC/NCC teaches/promotes falls under the 1983 Anathema, then those Orthodox bodies that are members would have to be concidered as having left the Church.

Conversely, if you don't feel that teachings/beleifs of the WCC/NCC fall under said anathema then those Orthodox bodies who are members have not left the Church.

Granted, I know not all Orthodox Churches who are members of the WCC are on the New Calender, but most are.

[bogoliubtsy]

I feel great about "world orthodoxy" having grace. I'm not a donatist and they've been condemned by no ecumenical council. Show me where, in their past, ROCOR has officially denied the grace of new calendar churches!

I hope this doesn't sound snide or anything but....

Whould you concider membership in the WCC or NCC to amount to apostasy? and Why?

Membership, to me, does not amount to apostasy. ROCOR was present at the WCC's World Conference on Faith and Order in Edinburgh, 1937. ROCOR has taken part in forms of "ecumenism" in the past. This type of ecumenism is acceptable to me. ROCOR hierarchs were also present at the WCC conference in Baden Baden in 1953. Here's a picture of that conference, if interested- [link]

I follow the words of Fr. Seraphim Rose on this matter:

"Some would-be zealots of Orthodoxy use the term 'ecumenism' in entirely too imprecise a fashion, as though the very use of the term or contact with an 'ecumenical' organization is itself a 'heresy.' Such views are clearly exaggerations. 'Ecumenism' is a heresy only if it actually involves the denial that Orthodoxy is the true Church of Christ. A few of the Orthodox leaders of the ecumenical movement have gone this far, but most Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement have not said this much; and a few (such as the late Fr. Georges Florovsky) have only irritated the Protestants in the ecumenical movement by frequently stating at ecumenical gatherings that Orthodoxy is the Church of Christ. One must certainly criticize the participation of even these latter persons in the ecumenical movement, which at its best is misleading and vague about the nature of Christ's Church; but one cannot call such people 'heretics', nor can one affirm that any but a few Orthodox representatives have actually taught ecumenism as a heresy. The battle for true Orthodoxy in our times is not aided by such exaggerations."

If you feel that what the WCC/NCC teaches/promotes falls under the 1983 Anathema, then those Orthodox bodies that are members would have to be concidered as having left the Church.

Conversely, if you don't feel that teachings/beleifs of the WCC/NCC fall under said anathema then those Orthodox bodies who are members have not left the Church.

Notice that father Seraphim says a few representatives of the Orthodox Churches have taught heresy. Not neccessarily the Churches themselves.

Presently, the representatives of the Orthodox Churches who are present at the WCC are what you might call "professional ecumenists" for the most part. These people mostly seem to be academic types who like to travel around and put their Theology degrees to work. They, and their "statements", are misleading and sometimes heretical and should be stopped by their bishops. However, their views and actions do not usually represent the views and actions of their respective jurisdictions. Sure, the EP is personally doing ridiculous things, as is the Church of Antioch. They're flirting with disaster in my opinion. However, they have not been condemned by the Universal Orthodox Church. Until that time, one may chose to break away from them, but one should not say that they are without grace. Some of their members may be preaching heresy, but their actions must be reviewed by the Church before they can be considered outside of the Church. The interpretation given of the ROCOR Anathema on Ecumenism(not exactly ecumenism, but in fact the Branch Theory which, if you asked the bishops of almost any Orthodox Synod if they believe in it, they'd say NO) supports my conclusions. Vl. Vitaly wrote, while Metropolitan Philaret was still alive:

Time will show whether the other Local Churches will accept our decision concerning Ecumenism, even as in their own time, the decrees of the ten Local Councils were accepted by all, and were entered into the "Book of the Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers" of the Ecumenical Church.

And then:

De jure the Anathema which has been pronounced by us is of a purely local character of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but de facto it has an immense historical significance universally, historically and ecclesiastically, precisely because Ecumenism itself is a heresy of a world-wide scale.

So, the authors of the anathema interpreted it as a safeguard for the Church Abroad, not as a judgement of the entire Orthodox Church. "OrthodoxyorDeath" has pointed out that an anathema doesn't work this way. Well, maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Bishops or ROCOR didn't understand how an anathema is supposed to work...who knows? But it is quite obvious that the bishops understood the Anathema to be of a local character and not a judgement of the other Churches. More a safeguard than anything, it seems.

I do believe the Orthodox Churches should withdraw from the WCC and NCC or completely redefine their roles there. Fortunately, the rabid ecumenism of the 1960's is dead or dying. Also, as you probably know, the Orthodox members of the WCC have worked for the past few years to come to a conclusion on their participation in the WCC. I believe the final result of this "study" was that the Orthodox cannot participate in joint prayer with the non-Orthodox. As the heterodox move farther from Orthodoxy, more Orthodox WCC participants seem to be questioning involvement in the WCC.

[Daniel]

Have you ever read through any of the WCC's Constitution or it's Rules?

Or the NCC's Statement of Faith:

"The National Council of Churches is a community of Christian communions, which, in response to the gospel as revealed in the Scriptures, confess Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, as Savior and Lord. These communions covenant with one another to manifest ever more fully the unity of the Church. Relying upon the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, the communions come together as the Council in common mission, serving in all creation to the glory of God." --from the Preamble to the NCC Constitution.

I seriously cannot see how one can hostley call him/herself Orthodox and buy into this sort of tripe.

As a side note. If any other Local Orthodox church accepts the Synod's 1983 Anathema it really isn't of a 'local character' anymore, and is thusly on it's way to becoming a expression of what the Church has always beleived.