seraphim
I've been thinking about what OOD and others have written in recent weeks, and need some clarification from some of the ROCOR folks here.
What I'll say in this post will be fully opinion. I just want to say that upfront as my views on this seem to be in a state of flux. Actually, the only reason I'm posting on this thread is because I know you are a sincere seeking, and are asking honest questions (not just looking to revisit old debates--which is fine at times, but something I need to avoid at this point). If I don't post on this thread after this one, please forgive me.
i) Who exactly is ROCOR in communion with? Besides the various TOC's, is ROCOR actually in communion with any other group? I've been told more than once that ROCOR is in communion with the JP and Serbia, but the recent nasty letter Justin received makes me doubt the latter, as do past arguments I've caught onto amongst ROCOR folks themselves over the issue of concelebrating with Serbian clergy.
There have always been a range of opinions in ROCOR regarding the Serbs and Jerusalem. When there was a ROCOR-Serb concelebration in California in the late 70's (or maybe it was early 80's) and Fr. Seraphim talked about it, some people within ROCOR were very vocal in their disagreement. In other words, some in ROCOR had friendly relations with the Serbs, some wanted to be far more distanced. Fr. Seraphim himself is perhaps a good example of this, for (according to the Not of This World biography) at the beginning of his being a priest, he would not commune members of (what we would call) world Orthodoxy. As the years passed, though, he started communing them. He also started saying positive things about priests who were technically under the MP.
There is nothing wrong with this, there is nothing unorthodox or uncanonical (so far as I've read) about this. This seems, in fact, to be a very Orthodox (as opposed to Latin) practice. A bishop need not "check with the higher ups" to see who he must and must not be in communion with. He's a bishop! Now, if a council says "we are in communion with this church" or something like that, then that's different. In the cases of the JP and Serbs, though, there hasn't been any definitive decision... so it seems that it's perfectly Orthodox for each bishop to act as he feels he ought to. If even Saint Maximos could decide who he recognized (=was in communion with), and he was a simple monk, how much more so does a bishop have such a right?
I think the letter that ROCOR sent to Pat. Pavle indicates that ROCOR obviously wishes to maintain friendly relations with. More importantly, in this letter from the "Council of Bishops," we see that "liturgical communion" with the Serbs is an already existing thing (at least in the minds of the ROCOR hierarchs). They do not wish merely to continue "friendly relations," but to continue in full communion in prayer, worship, and eucharist. Some may dislike such a position by the synod, but this does seem to be the "semi-official" position at the moment, if there is any at all. I've heard of Serb Priests "being loaned" to ROCOR Churches, and vice versa; I've also heard of Serb-ROCOR concelebrations happening.
The communion with the JP is harder to get a handle on, but then the JP itself is in the midst of administrative chaos at present, isn't it? Other than these patriarchate (or possibly two), and the Bulgarian and Romanian old calendarists, and Met. Cyprian, ROCOR is not in full communion with anyone else. Is this a situation like Mark of Ephesus--where we may be left with few friends and ecclesiastical allies? Perhaps we are like a modern day Athanasius, only without the rock that was Rome--relying only on a bishop here and a priest there for support? I don't know... if you believe that world Orthodoxy has fallen, or is about to fall, I don't see any other alternative but to see this time as such a time of trial and apostasy.
Is Metropolitan Laurus actually listed amongst the primates that the JP recognizes?
A very good question you bring up! I wish I knew the answer.
ii) If ROCOR is in fact in communion with the JP/Serbia, a problem seems to arise ...Let's assume that ROCOR is in communion with Serbia or Jerusalem (or both). Is it not true that to varying degrees these two parties have been involved (particularly Serbia) either directly with the ecumenical movement, or at the very least recognize and are in communion with heirarchs who are very much comprimised by "ecumenism", including the EP?
I don't know. Perhaps it is out of hope.. out of brotherly love. I'm also confused and concerned. Let me just throw this historical example out. Saint Gregory the Theologian did not think that Saint Basil was explicit enough as to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. He actually had to defend Saint Basil as others attacked Basil for not being vocal enough. I just read a biography on Saint Gregory (by John McGuckin) which asserted that Gregory had thought that even Saint Basil's Treatise On the Holy Spirit did not go far enough. [1] Yet, even when there was a falling out as friends, they never broke communion (so far as I know). Now certainly we would not say that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is a small thing! Yet here Gregory was, trying to walk a fine line and continue relations (in some form or another, even if it was a distanced communion, and a posthumous personal reconciliation of sorts)
At the same time, the point you make stands. And in many ways the example I bring up is perhaps not relevent (though I still include it if only to diffuse the tendency of we traditionalists to make everything into black and white issues). So what can we say, that we broke communion with others over ecumenism and not the Serbs and the JP? Why? I can think of things to bring up (Saints Nikolai and Justin, and their disciples, the JP has always been very cautious, etc.), but when it all comes down to it, it's all very shaky. And so now what do we do that the JP and Serbs are in communion with Patriarchates that do the things that Nicholas listed? Questions like this last one are a major reason I am moving away from the moderate position and more towards a rigorist position. I believe I have been living in the past, where the more moderate position might have been more permissable--or at least understandable.
Besides Sergianism, I know one of the things ROCOR faults the MP with is it's involvement with ecumenism. Is it fair to fault one party of this, but not others?
Good question. Is it a double standard, or is there something about some parties that isn't true about other parties? I'm not sure that I know. Another related question--brought to mind by the words in the thread that you quote from OC.net. I said over there very straightly that communion with the EP and Antiochians was totally unacceptable, and therefore this was a reason that prevented the Russian Church from unifying at this point (since the MP is in union with them). But how, then, can we be in communion with the Serbs and JP if they are in communion with Antioch and the EP? How can I speak so straightly about the MP and it's "unacceptable" relations with the Antiochians and EP, but be so flexible on the the relations of the Serbs and JP with these groups? I don't know.
iii) The whole issue of so called "Cyprianic" ecclessiology ..Perhaps my understanding of these things is not as it should be. However, I am of the understanding that if a Church is in fact Orthodox, it's not permissable to severe ties with them without committing a grievous sin. Yet my understanding of the whole "Cyprianic" ecclessiological position (which apparently is ROCOR's position as well) is that "world Orthodoxy" is simply ailing. However, neither ROCOR nor the various TOC's are in communion with "world Orthodoxy". I'm wondering what defense there is of such a position (not being in communion with Orthodox Christians - the "walled off" approach.)
Well, there are quite a few documents on Orthodoxinfo that outline Met. Cyprian's ecclesiology. Some historical and patristic support is given. I'm not sure what to think of it at this point. I believe the case for "walling off" can be made, I'm just not sure that now it the time for it being made. Were we speaking two or three decades ago, I think it would have been much easier to accept it as a viable position.
I have to admit, after reading OOD's points on this subject, I have a hard time finding fault...it's taken time and patience, and it's been a big struggle to be open minded, but I've come to a point where I really cannot find good reason to say his position is mistaken. In short, what would be a good rebuttal, since I've yet to see one?
I'm looking foward to hearing more from OOD at this point. I'm eager to learn some more about his Church and ecclesiology. Since he's not participating on any of the threads other than the Sacred Scripture ones, however, I'll not ask any particular questions here.
I've been convinced for quite some time of the truthfulness of Orthodox Christianity. However, these are very troubled times. I'm hesitant to move too quickly, particularly now, because I do not want to throw my lot in with a group only to realize later on I've made a big mistake. Sad times indeed. I'm just looking for the truth.
I can understand that, and can see that. And you will find it, because God will show you the way if you seek (I say that which you already know).
Justin
[1] E.g., he says at one point: "His [Gregory's] remarks immediately precede what I think is a veiled allusion to Basil's treatise from 375, the De Spiritu Sancto. Greogry's silence about Basil's theological work has been almost 'deafening' so far. Now Gregory characterizes it as one of those works of preparatory paedeia, a preliminary treatise on words and meanings, which has benefitted him, but which he also contributed to, that can now be superseded by his latest treatment. [375] (Footnote 375 reads: Oration 31.2, PG 36.133. 'We, however, shall now turn i this oration to more advanced issues.') In this way the work of Basil is characterized as grammatikos in comparison to rhetorikos, a stepping place on the way somewhere else. the attitude is nothing new, Gregory more or less told Basil to his face while he was still alive that his pneumatology was insufficient, and that was one of the reasons they had so seroiusly fallen out." - John McGuckin, Saint Gregory, An Intellectual Biography, (Saint Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2001), p. 301
