I read 12 articles/documents from the ROAC perspective today, and I jotted down (well, typed out) my thoughts as I read each of them. I've been making comments about ROCOR lately that are hardly what one would call apologetic (in the theological sense), so I hope no one will take this the wrong way, as though it is an attack of ROAC. It is, again, merely the thoughts I had as I read the texts.
1) Statement of His Grace, Gregory, Bishop of Denver Vicar of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) in America, Concerning the Recent actions of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile (ROCE)
It was laudable when the retired Metropolitan Vitaly separated himself from his former Synod of Bishops. Moreover, it was with great sorrow that we beheld the photographs of him being abused by these same bishops whom he himself had ordained. Besides their lack of Faith, does not their lack of love also demonstrate their lack of grace?
I do not disagree with the attempt to bring Vitaly back to the states. Call it kidnapping if you wish. One cautions that things much worse than this were done in Church history by saints. A number of Saints in fact became bishops almost against their will. This aspect of the whole fiasco undoubtedly seems more offensive to our westernized sensibilities than it really should (if we had a truly Orthodox sense).
2) Concerning the Canonical Status of ROCE and Metropolitan Vitaly
This document makes a point that it does not commend or support ROCiE's actions and deems them uncanonical. Mentions an interesting, relevant, historical example (in relation to the whole ROCiE matter).
3) An Open Letter to Metropolitan Vitaly, the Clergy and the People of the ROCE
Again says that ROCiE is uncanonical. Mentions Bishop Gregory Grabbe's words that ROCOR had "fallen under its own anathema," but gives no support for this from an examination of the actual anathema. This letter would perhaps not have been the best time to examine such things in detail; still, it would have been nice to have seen a few lines from the actual anathema, rather than a quote from Saint Basil the Great.
I've learnt a great deal from both this text, and the first one, about the mindset of Bishop Gregory. I think I now undersatnd that he (and others) were perhaps not as rash as I had thought they were in leaving ROCOR. Also, it was said that ROCOR was in communion with the Bulgarians and Romanians before Cyprian; however, all questions that I had about this seeming double-standard (why stay during those communions but leave at the cyprian union?) has been cleared up for me after reading texts one and three.
This document also says that Vitaly fell away from Orthodoxy in 1995 at the Cyprian union, which leads me to assume that I am not considered Orthodox by ROAC. I guess I already knew that... with the Dormition Skete saying that ROCOR was apostates and such, it's just interesting to have it confirmed here. I wonder, what would happen if I were to become ROAC? I have apparently never been Orthodox, in their view. Never baptized, never chrismated, never confessed, never communed. Never sacramentally married?
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church has preserved the Faith of our ancestors. It rightly acknowledges itself as the true Church of Patriarch Tikhon and all the New Martyrs of Russia, and this is indisputable. Why not desire the prayers of the Russian Church, as a seal to your repentance?
"Indisputable"? I wouldn't go that far! It is of interest that Bishop Gregory would even use such a word, though. When one examines the Letters of Saints Gregory of Basil, we see the exact opposite. When addressed to the actual person/group being discussed, they are rarely filled with polemic, but are more often reconciliatory and postively toned. One wonders what Bishop Gregory hoped to accomplish by including a word like "indisputable" in this sentence.
4) An Anathema against the Sergianists
Anathematizes sergianists.
5) The Apostolic Succession of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church
Lists Succession from Saint Andrew through current ROAC bishop.
6) Timeline of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Russia and Greece and the Great Apostasy of Orthodoxy in the 20th Century
Some very interesting notes, though I'm not sure that I trust the accuracy of all of them. The first two things listed in 1987 are particularly troublesome to me; if someone wished to demonstate to me the truth behind the ROAC (or for that matter, GOC) beliefs, evidencing these two claims (ie the ones regarding Arch. Mark and the binding directive) would be the best place to start.
Interestingly, this timeline doesn't mention when ROCOR came into communion with the Bulgarians and Romanians. I find that very odd, considering how detailed they were concerning all the other claimed lapses on the part of ROCOR hierarchs.
7) Interview with the First Hierarch of the ROAC, Metropolitan Valentine
Some interesting comments. Met. Valentine's position comes across well. However, interestingly, when asked: "Did the desire to leave the ROC come only in 1990 or before? If you were prepared to leave ROC, before, why then did this materialize only in 1990?" he responded: "Before 1990, actually, there was nowhere to go. The parishes of the Church Abroad were deep underground, and if there is no alternative, then one thinks that there is nowhere to go and it is possible some how to suffer a bit longer." This is exactly the position a traditionalist is in in America if they don't see ROCOR as where they should be (since the GOC, ROAC, etc. are so far between--if one even accepts them as legit alternatives at all). We are stuck with nowhere to go. Perhaps the advice of St. Raphael (of Brooklyn) is relevant here: he told people that it was better to pray in their homes than to go to non-Orthodox Churches. But what does that mean for people like me, who ROAC, etc. would say are not even in the Church to begin with?
I thought some of the comments were very untrue... at least from what I've seen. I've never once heard (or heard about) anyone "openly laugh" at either Vitaly or that whole sad situation, as Met. Valentine claims. I've seen quite the opposite, the ROCOR has tried to "cover their father's nakedness" because he was indeed such a good, Orthodox man. One of the things that is hard for me is that ROCiE has this rhetoric machine that keeps pumping out anti-ROCOR literature, while the ROCOR hiearchs seem to be almost totally quiet about things. They seem to be taking it on the cheek, and then showing the other one. No, I don't agree with these words of Met. Valentine, not for one second.
8 ) Biographies of the Bishops
Various biographical notes on ROAC bishops.
9) Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado
Same bio notes as #8.
10) Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church
Interesting history of the FROC/ROAC and ROCOR. Not sure that I buy everything, though I don't know enough of the history to point out where exactly I think there are errors.
11) Letter of Bishop Gregory Grabbe to Metropolitan Vitaly
Interesting letter... if nothing else, it helps to have more of an understanding of where ROAC is coming from (which is helpful, and more of these types of texts being available would be beneficial)
12) "Falling Under Their Own Anathema" or: The Inglorius End of the Church Abroad
This text makes a number of good points about the ROCOR document of 2000 which concused many in and out of ROCOR. The issue of the recognition of the martyrs by the MP, and the letter to Paul of Serbia were both brought up. However, we again have no actual examination of the 1983 anathema, but just some generalized comments. One wonders how someone can name an article something, and then barely speak of it in the actual text. Surely ROAC is aware that there is more than one interpretation of what the anathema means, how it is to be used/executed, etc... so why not take the time to explain the ROAC position? It would also be interesting to read what ROAC think of the document published by ROCOR in 2001 which attempted to clarify what was meant by the admittedly hastily prepared and poorly articulated document from 2000.
