What would you do if ROCOR and the MP united tomorrow?

[mwoerl]

through some forwards from various lists that i have received, it looks like maybe things will slow down a bit on the "union" front . . .

Bishop Gabriel (Chemodakov) of Manhattan has apparently spoken out somewhat forcefully against quick "union" with the MP on the grounds that both sergianism and ecumenism are indeed still issues that need to be addressed in regard to the MP, despite the denials of Frs. Lebedeff, Shaw, Whiteford, et al.

Bishop Daniel (Alexandrov) of Erie has made a statement against a "union" on the grounds that that the ROCOR and the MP have, basically, nothing much in common-on a practical level-to "unite" at all. He states that the ROCOR, while not "officially" autocephalous, indeed has operated as an autocephalous church almost since its inception, and that any "union" with the MP would curtail the freedom of the ROCOR. He also stated that the first consideration of any church or church hierarchy is for the good of the flock, and that he sees no good for the flock of the ROCOR in any "union."

A letter of 14 priests of the Diocese of New York-Eastern America speaks out against "union," and almost unbelievably goes on to say they will "cease obedience" if a union is carried out. As one of the 14 signatories is Fr. Valery Lukianov, this would seem to carry some weight.

Another letter of "life-long members of the ROCOR," signed by several well known and respected members of the ROCOR of Russian origin also warns against a quick "union." These people also "carry some weight."

The Resolution of the Australian Diocese was interesting, in that it states that a return to the principles of the All Russian Sobor of 1917-1918 is necessary prior to any "union." As this Sobor, among other things, insituted the participation of the clergy and laity in choosing Bishops, a call for the return to its principles, if acted on, could prove to be quite a change . . .

It is also interesting that these many "protesters" against "union" have waited until now to speak out. This seems to back up the notion that there are negative expectations among those issuing these letters for the upcoming Sobor and subsequent meeting between Met. Lavr & Patriarch Alexey II.

While such activities, of course, do not necessarily mean that any "plans" will now be undone, it does seem that these voices will give the Hierarchs of ROCOR a little something more to think about. It also certainly suggests possibly more of a faction that will refuse to accept such a "union" than has been foreseen.

Michael Woerl

P.S. to "St Gregory the Theologian": I am very glad that you have learned something about the historyu of our Church! I am one who thinks the history of the Orthodox Church should be "required study" for both those who are Orthodox, and those who want to become Orthodox. I sense a certain hesitation on your part to believe that the "Parisian School" was, and/or is one of the chief proponents of ecumenism. Unlike many, many other aspects of the history of Orthodoxy, this subject has been extremely well documented, both by "pro-ecumenism" activities, tracts, pamphlets, periodicals, books, etc., of those involved in the "Paris School," and those who took exception to that involvement. Perhpas it woudl be to your benefit to learn more.

[rebecca]

My question for the bishops in favor of union: Why now? Why ever? Does anyone have any articles or statements that would answer these questions?

I

[Lounger]

TO MOSCOW OR NOT TO MOSCOW?

The duty of those in the diaspora, of those who have preserved their lives and who are not partaking of the grief which is destroying our people, is to preserve the unity of the Christian spirit under the sign of the Holy Cross and protected by the Orthodox Faith, according to the tradition of the Russian Church. (1)

The Message of Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky at the First Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in Sremski Karlovtsi, exactly eighty-two years ago (8 to 20 November 1921).

A delegation including three bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) is at this moment preparing to meet Patriarch Alexis II. They are to fly to Moscow for a historic meeting for a discussion on the future of the two parts of the Russian Church, a discussion which has aroused controversy.

On the one hand, everybody agrees that both inside and outside Russia great political changes have taken place since the turning-point of the millennial celebrations of 1988. The Patriarchal Church is now much freer than before. It is no longer the Patriarchate of Stalinist times, it is not even the Patriarchate of the early 1980's, when a figure like the recently departed Metropolitan Pitirim of Volokolamsk talked of the compromises he was forced to make as 'daily suicide' (2). The Patriarchate has drawn nearer to the convictions of the Church Outside Russia.

Equally, everybody agrees that the independent existence of the Church Outside Russia was never intended to be anything but temporary and conditional. These were the clear terms of the Patriarchal decree No 362, issued nearly exactly eighty-three years ago on 7/20 November 1920.

On the other hand, there is disagreement about the extent to which the Patriarchal Church in Russia is free, both internally and externally. Equally there are those who maintain that the temporary and conditional independence granted to ROCOR means that ROCOR should have ceased to exist in or even before the year 2000, with the first canonizations of New Martyrs in Moscow; others maintain that the time for independence to come to an end is now.

Yet others assert that independence should continue, because the Patriarchal Church is still heavily Sovietized and ROCOR is preparing to sell its independence for some as yet unclear worldly advantage. These people believe that we are not talking about the merger or fusion of the two parts of the Church, separated by the events of twentieth century history. They believe that we are talking about the brutal takeover and absorption of ROCOR into the Patriarchal Church.

In other words, the whole debate can be summed up in a few words: Has the time now come for the two parts of the Russian Church to concelebrate, or is the movement towards concelebration still premature?

Everybody seems to have a different opinion on this matter. Part of the divisiveness of this issue is that so many are idly speculating about uncertain and imagined propositions and details, and not soberly talking and praying about hard facts. What are we to think?

Inevitably each viewpoint depends on our personal experience of Church life.

Parishioners tend to reflect their personal experience of life. But parishioners of the older generation tend to have different views from those of the younger generations.

Parish priests tend to reflect the local views of their whole parishes. But Russian parishes tend to have different views from non-Russian parishes.

Only diocesan bishops tend to reflect not so much personal or local views as the general views of their dioceses. But views in dioceses with large numbers of parishioners and clergy from contemporary Russia also tend to have different views from dioceses with few such parishioners and clergy.

At this point it should not be forgotten that in Greek the word for bishop, 'episcopos', means 'overseer', that is to say someone who has oversight, an overall or global view of things. And given that ROCOR is in fact a global and multinational Church, with members in the Americas, North and South, Australasia, Western Europe and elsewhere, her bishops do literally have a global oversight, a global overview, of Church matters. They have to take into account the complex needs of the members of their international and multinational Church.

It seems to us therefore that only a Church Council of all the ROCOR Bishops, having consulted its faithful people and clergy, can reach not a personal, local or general decision, but a global decision, on the future relations of ROCOR with the Patriarchal Church in Moscow. Only a Council (in Russian 'Sobor') can have a global view, global oversight, in the spirit of conciliarity and catholicity (in Russian 'sobornost'). Only those with such a frightening responsibility can oversee the overall interests of a global Church, Russian and Non-Russian, old and young, rich and poor, and of all political persuasions.

Whatever the propositions and counter-propositions which may be put forward in Moscow, whatever the fruit of historic discussions over the next few months, it seems to us that to pray for what we want to happen cannot be right. In reality there is only one thing that we parish priests and laity can do: to pray to God that His Will may be done. 'Man proposes, but God disposes'. We should already know that God's Will can be and is done, not because of us, but in spite of us. 'Thy Will be done'. This can be the only right way for all of us.

Priest Andrew Phillips

1/14 November 2003
Sts Cosmas and Damian

Notes:

1) Translated by myself and published in 'Eastern Churches Review', Spring 1975.

2) 'Ezhednevnoye samoubiistvo'. A personal communication in early 1990 of the late Fr Lev Lebedev, who was then staying with us in Paris. Fr Lev had worked closely with Metropolitan Pitirim since his writings had been published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, of which the Metropolitan was Editor from 1963 to 1994. This confirmed the impressions I had received from the Metropolitan when in personal conversation with him in England and France in 1978 and 1979.

[Lounger]

A letter of 14 priests of the Diocese of New York-Eastern America speaks out against "union," and almost unbelievably goes on to say they will "cease obedience" if a union is carried out. As one of the 14 signatories is Fr. Valery Lukianov, this would seem to carry some weight.

The letter dated 15 November, 2003 addressed to Metropolitan Lavr and the Synod of Bishops was signed by Protopriests Valery Lukianov, Alexis Ohotin, Gregory Kotliaroff, Boris Kizenko, Alexander Donchenko, Theodore Shevzov, Wsewolod Dutikow, Paul Volmensky and Priests Igor Chitikov, Daniel McKenzie, Sergius Lukianov, Victor Dobrov, George Zelenin and Paul Ivanov.

[Lounger]

Resolution of the Southern Deanery, ROCOR(L)

We, the clergy of the Southern Deanery of the Diocese of New York and Eastern America, gathered at St. Mary of Egypt Russian Orthodox Church in Lilburn, Georgia before the Kursk Root Icon of the All-holy Theotokos on November 10, 2003, resolve the following:

1) Our support of the Council of Bishops in its decision to enter into dialogue with the hierarchy of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

2) Our concerns that the following issues be clearly addressed in the course of this dialogue:

a) The importance of all previous resolutions of the Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia concerning the Moscow Patriarchate.

b) Sergianism: the collaboration with government activities that threaten the life of the Church.

c) Ecumenism: the official contact with heterodox bodies that compromises the Orthodox Faith, or actions and statements that imply that these bodies are a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

d) New Martyrs: the recognition of all the new martyrs, including those who opposed Metropolitan Sergius.

e) World Orthodoxy: the relationship of the Russian Church with the other Orthodox bodies.

3) Our desire to commit ourselves and our flocks to fervent prayer for the guidance of the Holy Spirit upon our hierarchs.

Bishop Gabriel of Manhattan
Protopriest Damian Criscella
Protopriest John Townsend
Protopriest Gregory Williams
Priest Alexis Duncan
Priest Seraphim Stephens
Priest George Johnson
Priest Anastasy Yatrelis
Priest George Brooks
Priest Alexander Logunov
Priest Nicholas Raabe
Priest Seraphim Holland
Priest John Moses
Priest Mark Mancuso
Priest Onouphry Keith
Priest Viatchislav Davidenko
Deacon Anthony Bridges
Deacon Matthew Williams
Deacon John Hanson

[mwoerl]

in the letter/article (?) by Father Andrew Phillips posted above, "To Moscow or not to Moscow," Father Andrew states:

"Parish priests tend to reflect the local views of their whole parishes."

Most unfortunately, it seems that the loudest voices in favor of "union," and a swift "union" at that, do not reflect ANY views but their own. Indeed, they do not seem to be open to the proposition of questions regarding their "exalted" and "totally correct to the letter" positions. Unless, of course, one would want to allow that "being open to questions" includes character assassination and insults to those who have the nerve to actually question these "authorities"! Seemingly, they want the ROCOR to operate on the previous OCA model, where "learned luminaries" more or less dictated policy to the Bishops, obviously seeing themselves in that role. Hopefully, this type of approach, as well as the attitude that "it is so simply because I said it is so," as well as their penchant for, let us say, a less than completely truthful presentation of the "facts," will result in their efforts being rewarded as they should be.

I myself have not seen a great deal of outright "pro-union" statements coming from the Hierarchy of the ROCOR. Of course, there is the long-standing opinion of Archbishop Mark (Arndt) of Berlin & Germany; the only other statement I have seen is the interview with Bishop Kyrill (Dimitrieff) of S.F. and Western America. Bishop Kyrill mentions the changes that have taken place in Russia, and tells us that he has changed his former opinion. The most disturbing thing about the "change of mind" that Bishop Kyrill has experienced is that it has apparently caused him to forbid his former "anti-union" statements from being published or reproduced in any way again.

Hopefully, "Letters" and "Statements" from clergy and laity, such as the ones mentioned above, which would seemingly attract at least some attention from the Hierarchs, may slow down this process to some degree, and cause further free dialogue within the ROCOR. At that point, the clergy who shrilly call for "union NOW," and who warn that the ROCOR will degenerate into a "sect" if "union NOW" is not achieved, will be free to avoid that dire fate themselves, if they wish, by joining the MP.

On the negative side for those who do not desire "union," there have arisen some voices who unfortunately criticize any efforts towards "union" in most -uh- odd ways. One protester against union made a big case of the supposed "fact" that "Metropolitan Lavr was a Uniate." When he was told that Metropolitan Lavr was baptised as an Orthodox Christian when he was an INFANT by Archimandrite Vitaly (Maximenko, +1960, later Archbishop) in Ladomirova, Czechoslovakia, he went on to "ask," "Yes, but what church did he belong to BEFORE he was baptized?" As the nonsense and intolerance of those who want "union NOW" will hopefully only serve to damage their cause, such utter insanity as this (and there is plenty more like it, sad to say) will undoubtedly damage the cause of those who are not in favor of "union," and give credence to those in favor, and their insistent charges that those not in favor are wild-eyed supporters of the "Mansonville Schism," or other such endeavors.

Apparently all that can be done now is to pray and to wait and see what happens at the Clergy Conference, the Sobor, and the visit of Metropolitan Lavr to Russia to meet with Patriarch Alexey II. After the results of all this are known, "let your conscience be your guide."

Michael Woerl

[John the Russian]

I think this poll is an excellent idea however, are only ROCOR people voting and how de we know? Also why is the label on one of the choices "Extremist groups", in whose eyes are they extremist? Certainly not in those of people who want ROCOR to remain where it is.