http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox- ... ssage/9663
From: byakimov@csc.com.au
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 1:28 am
Subject: QUO VADIS, in English
"QUO VADIS, ROCOR?"
AT THE THRESHOLD OF DECISIVE EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX
CHURCH
Nicolas G. Schidlovsky [original in Russian]
No decisions of the Church can be made outside the framework of an established orderly procedure.
In giving full expression to this principle so deeply valued by the early Church and held so dear by Her in accordance with the teachings of Our Savior and the example set by the Holy Apostles, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote: "The Church is by its own nature an embodiment of fairness, a general law that applies to all. In its generalized application is found its prayer, its labor, its strength over temptation, its regulatory approach to its own existence" (see his On the Duties of the Clergy). One can cite numerous expressions of this same idea by other church writers throughout the centuries.
The idea of "churchliness" (tserkovnost') is unity, harmony?and not division into superiors and subordinates. This same thought is stated in a more contemporary fashion by Khomiakov's teacher, I.P. Giliarov-Platonov, who wrote: "In our basic understanding, the Church is envisioned as a body where there is complete circulation of fluid elements, and not as a machine in which everything is set into rotation by virtue of a ratchet drive." (see Vl. Maevsky, Na nive tserkovnoi, New York, 1968).
Although at first sight these and similar thoughts may seem abstract and without direct relation to the established church structure in our day, it is essential to review them carefully, to enter into their essence, and to understand the extent to which they in fact do apply to us.
The challenge of reviving procedural "orderliness" has existed in the Russian Church since the Synodal Period (18th-early 20th cc). It is well-known that by the time of the All-Russian Council in 1917, the entire Church had come to a deep realization concerning the necessity of renewing the principles of "church unity/catholicity" (sobornost), without which it would not have been possible to elect Patriarch Tikhon. But, this was at the outbreak of the Revolution, and the question concerning the original (distinctive), self-governing existence of the Church within the bounds of the modern secular state remained unresolved?suspended like an ominous cloud over the life of the entire nation.
And so, in view of these circumstances, these and related historic initiatives remain incomplete to our day?
Today there is mounting opinion among countless faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) that the current steps being taken to resolve the question concerning the mutual relationship of the two parts of the Russian Church "outside" and "within" native borders are being undertaken with undue speed and without proper preparation. The necessity of finding an answer to this question is obviously at hand. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that the given approach of the organizers and the insufficient notification of the flock in these matters will result in a deep disagreement.
So what should we do? Indeed, it is crucial to forestall future divisions in the Church, both the deepening of existing wounds and the infliction of new ones on the Body of Christ, which has been so tormented and worn out by suffering? Where shall we start? And, how might we arrive at a resolution that would be "competent," "complete" and "integral," i.e., a fundamentally "churchly" resolution (sobornoe reshenie) that would reflect precisely the initiative of the Church as a whole and would bear the incontrovertible seal of the Holy Spirit?
These perplexities only increase and become ever more painful in view of what is happening today, and particularly in regards to the pending "pastoral conference" that has been scheduled by the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR in Nyack, near New York, on December 8-12. Tere is no question that for the majority of the ROCOR faithful this approaching event comes quite unexpectedly, and for good reason! It is precisely at this event (and at the Council of Bishops immediately to follow), we are told, that there will be important decisions made concerning the new direction in the Church Abroad's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and, therefore, concerning the future of the entire Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).
Accordingly, no clear-minded and devoted member of the Russian Church in view of all that has been experienced in the 20th-century history of the Church can possibly be in a position to perceive this "meeting" as anything other than a preliminary "gathering" or "discussion." It would be completely naïve from the standpoint of the church administration to assume that any decisions at such a "gathering" without the participation and consent of the flock could open wide the doors for the top clergy of the Church to begin activity toward unification, or even the establishment of conditional ties, with the MP.
The present thoughts are being written with the desire to assist the conciliar mind in these matters and the nurturing of positive, healing results at a decisive historical crossroads. It is our sincere hope that no meetings with the MP will emerge as a direct outcome of the imminent event in Nyack because such initiatives without the consent of the entire flock will endanger the future unity of the Church. This kind of step cannot be made without the representation of all its members?all clergy and laity (even if, at the present moment, it is only the clergy and laity of the ROCOR). Unfortunately, this kind of churchly "orderliness" does not seem to be part of the immediate plan at the Nyack meeting.
We welcome the desire of our bishops to begin addressing the difficult matter of relieving the challenging and burdensome situation in the Russian Church, a situation that bears profound impact on contemporary Orthodoxy around the globe. Nevertheless, it is crucial to carefully consider the agenda with the aim of a sober approach to the problem. The first question, which we must answer, is not the one concerning our end goal, what is it we want to accomplish. One would expect that the answer would be the same for all of us: our goal is the historical reunification of the Russian Church. But, what must be resolved in order to do so is a different problem. So we must ask ourselves, specifically how should we accomplish it? We must not rush with our answer to this problem. We need to consider it very deeply in light of the scope of historical difficulties confronting the Russian Church. We must carefully assess the underlying reasons for these tragic circumstances, and consequently, the response that is needed on behalf of the entire Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
In other words, in answering the call of Patriarch Alexis of Moscow, the ROCOR must accurately formulate its own position in respect to the MP and courageously proclaim its longstanding hope for an authentic resolution of the contemporary problem that faces the Russian Church. In some sense, this has already been done in the past in replying to prior invitations of the MP. But, today, it would seem to be essential to strengthen and solidify the ROCOR's position by avoiding in advance any unnecessary actions that might appear to be "rushed," or worse yet? "secretive" ("from behind the scenes"). Only then will the answer to the Patriarch carry with it the kind of completeness and the absolute church mandate that are needed to truly guide, and bring peace, to the life of the Church. Caring and thoughtful analysis from our end, as well as from that part of the Russian Church that lives "within" native boundaries in Russia, will also be required in respect to the completely analogous question concerning the churchly "mind" of the MP, i.e., whose voice shall we consider that the Patriarch himself represents in his invitation for a dialogue with the ROCOR? At this point, we have no possibility of finding the answer to this question with any confidence or certitude (there exist only the opinions of isolated individuals). However, it is entirely within our realm of competence to make the first positive step in resolving this issue, if only we do not deprive ourselves of the possibility of learning from the historical practice of Orthodoxy.
Without question, the centuries-old experience of the Church shows that what is needed at this time for the "rebirth" and "reinstitution" of the fullness of life in the Russian Church is a churchly process (sobornyi protsess). With proper guidance and in a prayerful, unrushed atmosphere it is precisely our church-centered debates and discussions that will reveal the authentic "voice" of the Church and will grant us discernment in respect to the serious questions that confront all of us. Only then will we be in a position to daringly invoke the ancient words of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as a seal of our actions:"it has seemed to the Holy Spirit and to us."
In the end, we may find that what comes our way will be an extended?and even painfully long-lasting?process. May the Lord's will be done! But, without this process, and without having completely understood its obvious, uncompromising necessity for the Russian Church as a whole, we can be absolutely certain that the present approach of the church organization in the ROCOR, as well as in the MP, bears little or no promise of anything good.
We are hoping to be the witnesses of a miracle in the Russian Church, when all of us in oneness of mind and spirit will be able to repeat the words of the Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles, St. Vladimir?
"O Lord God, Creator of Heaven and Earth,
Look down upon Thy newly-baptized people
that they may truly come to know Thee, the True God,
and that Thou mayest strengthen them in the Orthodox Faith
to the glory of Your Holy Name
in the Russian land?"
Princeton, New Jersey
November 8, 2003