Minutes of the ROCOR Bishops’ Synod
held on September 6 & 7, 2005
(At the monastery at Jordanville, NY)
Participants: Metropolitan Lavr; Archbishops Alypy, Mark, Kyrill;
Bishops Gabriel, Michael, Agapit and Peter
http://elmager.livejournal.com/
On those same dates was heard Archpriest Aleksandr Lebedev’s report on the latest meeting of the two negotiating committees, which occurred in July, 2005, in Moscow. His Excellence Bishop Evtikhii participated in the synod replacing Bishop Ambroise, who could not attend due to illness. Fr. Aleksandr handed all the hierarchs folders containing documents from the 5th joint session. The first document, a communiqué from the 5th session, was read. It explains that “discussions of church-canonical matters occurred during the session. They went on to discuss the status of several clerics and parishes of the Russian Church Abroad which are currently located on the territory of the MP, and (ROCOR’s) association with other groups that do not have relations with the primary Orthodox churches.”
The Protocol of the 5th joint meeting of the MP Commission for negotiations with the Russian Church Abroad and the Russian Church Abroad Commission for negotiations with the MP was read. The Protocol of the Subcommittee containing Archpriest Nikolay Balashov and Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin from the MP side and Archimandrite Luke and Archpriest Aleksandr Lebedev was read. This Protocol discusses the difficult question of the canonical status of clerics who went over to either one or the other side, many of which did so under censure.
All the information regarding clerics who were accepted from the MP has not been received from several of our hierarchs.
Bishop Michael says he disagrees with the point in the Protocol of the latest session of the commissions about the illegitimacy of our parishes on the canonical territory of the MP. Bishop Michael believes that since we are also a part of the Russian Church, our parishes in Russia cannot be considered uncanonical.
Met. Lavr says we are also the Russian Church and we had the right to accept the parishes in Russia that appealed to us at one time to come under our omofor.
Fr. Aleksandr reads the section under point #3 in the Protocol of the 5th session, which describes the proposal to sever Eucharistic communion with the Old-Calendar Greek, Romanian and Bulgarian groups, who disagree with our possible Eucharistic communion with the MP. It was decided to resolve this question at the next Bishops’ Synod in 2006.
Fr. Aleksandr says that at all the meetings, B. Mark insists that the MP return at least one piece of property taken away from us in the past.
Met. Lavr says that would help matters greatly, and would calm down many of the faithful of our church in light of the ongoing negotiations. Following that, Met. Lavr notes that point #9 in the Protocol from the last session discusses the question of how to facilitate the conversion of people to Orthodoxy. Metropolitan believes that we should not change our requirements, for example insisting on baptism with total immersion for Catholic converts.
Fr. Aleksandr says the question of Eucharistic communion between ROCOR and the MP is still unresolved. Therefore, the main topic for discussion at the next meeting of the commissions will be the resolution of all questions preventing Eucharistic communion. Along with that, Fr. Aleksandr reminds everyone the folders also contain a draft copy of the Act announcing Eucharistic communion, which also describes the aftereffects of our canonical union.
Met. Lavr says that this proposed canonical union contains several points which may lead to a schism, as many of our clergy and parishioners will not accept them.
The meeting concluded at 8 PM with the singing of a prayer.
Wednesday, September 7 (August 25)
The meeting began at 9 AM with a prayer and in the presence of the Kursk Mother of God icon. The same hierarchs participated in this meeting as in the previous day.
Wednesday, September 7 (August 25)
Fr. Aleksandr Lebedev continues his report.
The “Act of Canonical Union,” which is found in the folders, is read.
Met. Lavr says that the 4th point, which states that the Moscow Patriarch will designate the ROCOR hierarch, needs to be clarified to explain that only in some unusual instances that involve canonical questions, would the ROCOR hierarch not be designated by the Patriarch.
Fr. Aleksandr says that Metropolitan’s comment on this point will be taken into account by both committees at the next meeting.
The 5th point from the draft of the canonical union is read, which states that “The (ROCOR) hierarch’s name will be commemorated during every liturgy in every ROCOR parish after the name of the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia.”
B. Michael says that the Patriarch has not been commemorated for 80 years and that we do not yet officially recognize him as such. Our flock will not understand why this order of names is necessary. The flock has to be prepared for this and that first all DOUBT has to be removed regarding such a commemoration.
B. Peter says that we find ourselves in a particular situation and they must take this into account. When the time comes and our flock will calmly accept this commemoration, then we can discuss this question.
Fr. Aleksandr reads the 7th point of the Act, which discusses the Moscow Patriarch’s approval of all bishops chosen by ROCOR.
Archbishop Kyrill says that this point, like the 4th point, has to be clarified to note that only in some unusual instances that involve canonical questions, would the ROCOR bishops not be designated by the Patriarch. Etc, etc.