Two questions

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Thu 25 September 2003 1:54 pm

It is my understanding that the head of an autocephalous Orthodox Church is the only one allowed to consecrate Holy Chrism for the use of his Church. Assuming that I am not mistaken in this, and that I am not mistaken in saying that ROCOR is not an autocephalous Church, from where does ROCOR receive Holy Chrism? Or are there other provisions for such a case?
The Holy Mountain is under the jurisdiction of the EP, so presumably anyone in communion with the EP could receive the sacraments there. Do monasteries on the Holy Mountain/the Holy Mountain itself commune members of Churches (like ROCOR, the TOC of Greece, the GOC, ROAC, etc.) which are not in communion with the EP? Or is the Holy Mountain in a state of dual communion, on the one hand with the EP, and on the other with these more traditionalist groups?

Thanks!

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Thu 25 September 2003 6:50 pm

Regarding the first one, the idea of an "autocephalous Church" (as a special title that equates to "we're valid") is a new concept. Of course, the idea of autocephaly (self governance) is as old as Christianity itself. Sometimes good ideas get put into practice and taken too far... we saw this with the concept of pentarchy, and now we see this with autocephalous churches. I think Saint Justin was right on the mark when he said:

Moreover, is it correct, is it Orthodox to have such representations of the Orthodox Churches at various pan Orthodox gatherings on Rhodes or in Geneva? The representatives of Constantinople who began this system of representation of Orthodox Churches at the councils and those who accept this principle which, according to their theory, is in accord with the "system of autocephalous and autonomous" local Churches - they have forgotten that such a principle in fact contradicts the conciliar tradition of Orthodoxy. Unfortunately this principle of representation was accepted quickly and by all the other Orthodox: sometimes silently, sometimes with voted protests, but forgetting that the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centred in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy: the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organisation of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchias, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology. - On the Summoning of the Great Council of the Orthodox Church

Julianna · Post by **Julianna** » Thu 25 September 2003 6:56 pm

OCA calls itself autocephalous and still gets it's chrism from the EPOC that doen'tt recognize it. Why?

ROCOR and ROAC and ROCE all make their own chrism. Whatta Priestless Old Rite Russians do I'd wonder?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Thu 25 September 2003 7:26 pm

Regarding your 2nd question, Mor, I'm unsure. I'd also be interested to know, if those monasteries on Mount Athos under the EP do not commune ROCOR, GOC, etc. because they are of an "irregular status," if they do commune people from the OCA jurisdiction (who would then also have to be classified as being of an irregular status since the EP has never recognized their autocephalous status, leaving them somewhere in Limbo between self-governance and being abandoned by their spiritual parent [as the MP, their acknowledged parent, certainly makes no claim to the OCA being theirs]).

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Thu 25 September 2003 9:39 pm

Paradosis wrote:
Regarding your 2nd question, Mor, I'm unsure. I'd also be interested to know, if those monasteries on Mount Athos under the EP do not commune ROCOR, GOC, etc. because they are of an "irregular status," if they do commune people from the OCA jurisdiction (who would then also have to be classified as being of an irregular status since the EP has never recognized their autocephalous status, leaving them somewhere in Limbo between self-governance and being abandoned by their spiritual parent [as the MP, their acknowledged parent, certainly makes no claim to the OCA being theirs]).

But there is a world of difference, IMO, between the irregular status of the OCA and the irregular status of the groups I mentioned. The OCA and the EP are in full communion, even though the EP does not recognise the autocephaly of the OCA. But the ROCOR, GOC, etc. are not in communion with the EP to begin with. The latter is a more irregular situation than the former, and I would think it would affect how the monasteries view the question of communing people from these groups.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Thu 25 September 2003 9:43 pm

Julianna wrote:
OCA calls itself autocephalous and still gets it's chrism from the EPOC that doen'tt recognize it. Why?

ROCOR and ROAC and ROCE all make their own chrism. Whatta Priestless Old Rite Russians do I'd wonder?

Presuming that EPOC means EP...

It is my understanding that the EP sends out Chrism to the heads of the other Churches in addition to providing it for his own as a symbol of his being first among equals. I could be wrong, but I read that somewhere. That doesn't depend on everyone having an agreed upon autocephalous status, but communion. Even then, the primate of the OCA consecrates Chrism for the OCA, so it is a token gesture.

I presumed that maybe ROCOR and the other groups consecrated their own Chrism, but I couldn't be sure. Is there any documentation for this?

Priestless Old Believers believe the priesthood has ended. Why would they need Chrism? They have no one to administer Chrismation, nor to consecrate it.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Thu 25 September 2003 9:46 pm

Paradosis wrote:
Regarding the first one, the idea of an "autocephalous Church" (as a special title that equates to "we're valid") is a new concept. Of course, the idea of autocephaly (self governance) is as old as Christianity itself. Sometimes good ideas get put into practice and taken too far... we saw this with the concept of pentarchy, and now we see this with autocephalous churches. I think Saint Justin was right on the mark when he said

I've read the quote from Father Justin that you posted before, as you posted it, IIRC, in other places. I am not concerned with the question of how autocephaly relates to validity, however. I was merely wondering who consecrates the Chrism, provided that the head of an independent Church is the one to do this, and ROCOR is not an independent Church? Or is the consecration of Chrism something that any bishop has the power to do, but is something merely reserved out of custom for the head of a Church?