OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 05:20:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lazar Puhalo  (Read 16359 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« on: October 29, 2002, 01:37:22 AM »

Rumors have persisted in Orthodox monastic circles for the past several months to the effect that Archbishop Lazar Puhalo of New Ostrog (Canadian Orthodox Church under the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kiev Patriarchate) and his associate, Bishop Varlaam of Vancouver, have requested the Orthodox Church in America (the "OCA") to receive them into its membership.  An inquiry I made to Syosset concerning this did not produce positive results, only that "the Holy Synod of Bishops has the matter (of Archbishop Lazar) on its agenda."

Since the Fall Session of the OCA's Holy Synod has just been completed, I noted on the OCA website that no mention whatsover is made concerning the status of Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlaam on the minutes of the Holy Synod, and it would appear that the reception of these two gentlemen into the OCA is still officially "in the dark."

From some unofficial OCA clergy sources, however, I was told that Lazar and Varlaam would be received into the OCA as "Retired Hierarchs."  Anybody hear anything new on this?

Hypo-Ortho

Logged
Loukas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2002, 09:56:59 AM »

I've looked for the same information myself. There's nothing definitive from Bp. Tikhon on it (at least on the Indiana list), so I'm assuming that it's still under consideration.

luke
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2002, 10:29:39 AM »

I've looked for the same information myself. There's nothing definitive from Bp. Tikhon on it (at least on the Indiana list), so I'm assuming that it's still under consideration.

luke

From a third party contact I know in direct conversation with both Abp. Lazar and Bp. Tikhon, Luke, it has been my impression that Abp. Lazar has desired reception into the OCA for some time--several years actually.  Now that he is up there in years, I hope he is granted his wish.  The only stumbling block I see would be his checkered jurisdictional past (ROCOR to "Free Serbian New Gracanica Diocese" to KP), especially his reception of episcopal orders from the schismatic KP jurisdiction, but even this can be corrected/filled with Grace by an act of ekonomia on the part of the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops--*OR*---BIG *OR*--if he is willing and sincere about desiring entrance into the OCA over all else, Abp. Lazar (and Bp. Varlaam) could be received as simple hieromonks rather than as bishops.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Loukas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2002, 12:48:54 PM »

Quote
..if he is willing and sincere about desiring entrance into the OCA over all else, Abp. Lazar (and Bp. Varlaam) could be received as simple hieromonks rather than as bishops.

I'd like to see that. My guess is that it is taking some time because the holy Synod has to determine the best way to receive them. It does appear that receiving them as bishops would be problematic. I trust that they will do the right thing.
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2002, 08:16:14 PM »

I knew Abp. Lazar for a brief time in 1998... he expressed to me then his wish that New Ostrog be made part of the OCA.  I was also told that he was friends with Abp. Tikhon and Abp. Dmitiri.  I think bringing them in as retired hierarchs would be the best possible solution, and give the OCA a beautiful monastery.  From how the OCA has dealt with the former "Christ the Saviour Brotherhood" parishes I don't think it will be a major deal, but it probably will take a year or so.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2002, 08:47:55 AM »

<snip>
I seriously hope the OCA thinks twice about "bringing him in". What he has said in published material (thus far) seems normal, if a bit one-sided. What he hasn't said in the public arena (yet, anyway) is disturbing. I hope the OCA is careful and investigates who it is that they are receiving into their Church.

Sorry for the post, I still don't technically participate at most general forums like this one, I just thought that (with the seemingly supportive words thus far) I had to post a bit regarding the "other side" of the issue.  (I can't post again any time soon [lest I fall into the habit of frequenting this forum again], so if anyone wants the entire email to see the context email me: stainlesskings@hotmail.com )

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Justin, it's good to see you participating again, if only minimally.  I'm sure the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops is taking all this into consideration, but I sure hope they're aware of all this--they must be: some of Abp. Lazar's books have even made it into the St. Vladimir's Seminary Bookstore!

(On a personal note: I have some biased sympathy for Abp. Lazar as he gave me some excellent personal advice following my own reception into Holy Orthodoxy from the Unia.)

With all this to consider, even with the serious canonical considerations aside, it's no wonder that the Holy Synod is taking its good old time on the petition of Abp. Lazar to be admitted to the OCA.  Perhaps, as Luke seemed to agree also, if and when Abp. Lazar and Bp. Varlaam are received into the OCA, the Holy Synod should and will receive them not as "Retired Hierarchs," as seems to be the rumor among some of the OCA clergy, but as simple hieromonks.  Let us pray that the OCA hierarchs have this possibility on their docket as well.  This way Lazar and Varlaam could aways be recognized as bishops later, when they have proven themselves.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: October 30, 2002, 11:46:11 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2002, 12:47:25 PM »

It looks like the monastery believes it is already a part of the OCA:

"The monastery is now part of the Canadian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in America."

http://www.new-ostrog.org/history.html

Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2002, 01:20:19 PM »

I am sorry Justin, but it is against standard netiquette to post another's private email.  Please remove it.  I understand your concern BUT it is also a potential legal issue for websites when this happens.  I will post a clearer rule on this shortly.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2002, 02:04:35 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Anastasios,

      Perhaps he has permission to post the email? If so, it would not cause any problems to repost it. I will often post someones email to me, but only with permission. God Bless!
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2002, 03:25:33 PM »

Justin,

If you have permission, then please indicate so and the quoted email in your post may stand.

In Christ,

anastasios
Adminstrator
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,980


black metal cat


« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2002, 03:35:21 PM »

I didn't have his explicit persmission to post it, so I took it down. I thought about putting it up for a while before I actually did (once I even wrote the post, and then backed up before posting it). Eventually I decided that it wasn't a private email, but was a theological response to a question I asked him about something he had publically stated on his site. If it would have been a personal email dealing with someone's sins or whatnot I certainly wouldn't have posted it. As it was though, I finally decided that it wouldn't be wrong to post it. Having thought about it further though, since you brought up the asking permission part, I decided that I probably shouldn't have posted it in the first place. (I mean, it's not going to accomplish anything)  Anyway, I'll keep it down now, sorry if I scandalized anyone!  Lips Sealed

Justin (hopefully posting for the last time for a while)
Logged

"But science is an inferential exercise, not a catalog of facts. Numbers, by themselves, specify nothing. All depends upon what you do with them" - Stephen Jay Gould
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2002, 03:43:17 PM »

Justin,

Everyone is agreed that they like your posts.  I would have said it to anyone else, too.  Thanks for being so agreeable.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2002, 10:52:20 PM »

It looks like the monastery believes it is already a part of the OCA:

"The monastery is now part of the Canadian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in America."

http://www.new-ostrog.org/history.html

One would think that if this were indeed the case, the OCA would make some kind of official announcement about it as it did when it received New Skete from the RC Diocese of Albany.  Perhaps the New Ostrog announcement is premature.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: October 31, 2002, 12:22:23 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2002, 11:29:30 PM »

According to replies received today from New Ostrog Monastery (NOM) to email inquiries, the monastery was received into the OCA via the Holy Synod of bishops of the OCA.  NOM claims to have documentation of this decision (I say "claims" because I have not seen these documents).  While NOM admits that concelebration is a "necessary" formality, which has not yet taken place, this concelebration, at which the Metropolitan is also to install Bp Varlaam of NOM as "Vicar Bishop of Vancouver" is to occur "shortly."  This is what I know so far.

An email was sent to the OCA this afternoon regarding these comments, which has not been replied to as of yet.  If a reply is received, I will certainly post the substance of the response.
It's not extensive, nor is it particularly revelatory,  but in the interest of propriety, those interested in the full text of the email exchange with NOM may email me via my profile page.  

Chrysostomos

Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2002, 12:12:19 AM »

The response from the OCA Communications Department was:

"The Holy Synod of Bishops will be looking further into this matter and, once they have done so, appropriate announcements will be made via the OCA web site and paper.
Hope this helps."

Chrysostomos
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2002, 12:33:25 AM »

The response from the OCA Communications Department was:

"The Holy Synod of Bishops will be looking further into this matter and, once they have done so, appropriate announcements will be made via the OCA web site and paper.
Hope this helps."
Chrysostomos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

IOW, Chrysostomos, we all have to just wait and see--the announcement from New Ostrog may indeed have been premature.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2002, 12:47:27 AM »

IOW, Chrysostomos, we all have to just wait and see

Maybe, but maybe not.  I've been told that Bp Tikhon voiced his strong disagreement with the idea at the recent Diocesan Assembly:  Deacon Lev was deposed by the ROCOR and back to the ROCOR he should go.

I don't generally engage in this sort of "hearsay," but have been given a specific blessing to do so, given the possible ecclesiological ramifications.  I assume you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding his leaving the ROCOR and I welcome your thoughts.  

Cheers,

Chrysostomos
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2002, 01:07:10 AM »

IOW, Chrysostomos, we all have to just wait and see

Maybe, but maybe not.  I've been told that Bp Tikhon voiced his strong disagreement with the idea at the recent Diocesan Assembly:  Deacon Lev was deposed by the ROCOR and back to the ROCOR he should go.

I don't generally engage in this sort of "hearsay," but have been given a specific blessing to do so, given the possible ecclesiological ramifications.  I assume you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding his leaving the ROCOR and I welcome your thoughts.  

Cheers,

Chrysostomos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Chrysostomos, it appears that this has become a "hot tomale" for the OCA and we should stop speculating (I should never have brought the matter of Abp. Lazar up on a public forum in the first place, but I used to correspond with him at one point and was genuinely interested in his status).

Bishop Tikhon, the OCA Bishop of San Francisco, if he said this, and he has both respect and sympathy for the ROCOR from what I know of him, is probably correct--Abp. Lazar did originate from the ROCOR as the former Deacon Lev Haler-Puhalo and it is back to the ROCOR he should go for "correction," I suppose, if Bishop Tikhon feels that this is the best way to rectify Abp. Lazar's canonical position (IOW, it is really the ROCOR's and not the OCA's "problem").  Given that Abp. Lazar and Bp. Tikhon are on personal friendly terms, this must have been very hard for Vladyka +Tikhon to say.

Yes, I am familiar with some of the circumstances surrounding the then Deacon Lev's departure from the ROCOR for the former "Free Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gracanica."

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2002, 01:20:49 AM »

IOW, it is really the ROCOR's and not the OCA's "problem"

Hopefully, the Holy Synod realizes the implications of this.

Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2002, 01:28:22 AM »

IOW, it is really the ROCOR's and not the OCA's "problem"

Hopefully, the Holy Synod realizes the implications of this.

Perhaps the OCA's Holy Synod does not want to do anything more to sour its relations with the ROCOR (and Bp. Tikhon would be most "representative" of the ROCOR's position on the OCA's Holy Synod).  The Holy Synod, from what I know, is sincerely interested in repairing its relations with the ROCOR to the point where both jurisdictions can at least act fraternally, even if they disagree on some non-dogmatic points.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Loukas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2002, 11:24:23 AM »

Quote
Quote
The Holy Synod, from what I know, is sincerely interested in repairing its relations with the ROCOR to the point where both jurisdictions can at least act fraternally, even if they disagree on some non-dogmatic points.

Which is more important for the Church than any one bishop's (or deacon's) career. If Bp. Tikhon said he's against it there's probably good reason it shouldn't happen.

Love, luke
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2002, 12:28:05 PM »

Quote
Quote
The Holy Synod, from what I know, is sincerely interested in repairing its relations with the ROCOR to the point where both jurisdictions can at least act fraternally, even if they disagree on some non-dogmatic points.

Which is more important for the Church than any one bishop's (or deacon's) career. If Bp. Tikhon said he's against it there's probably good reason it shouldn't happen.
Love, luke

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Apparently, Luke, because of illness, Bishop Tikhon was unable to attend the session of the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops when the decision was taken to admit Abp. Lazar and Bp. Varlaam (who should be considered separately from Abp. Lazar) to the OCA.  

Bishop Tikhon, from what I've learned, at the Diocesan Assembly of the Diocese of the West, has publicly stressed his disagreement with the bishops' decision concerning Abp. Lazar at the sobor, and the bishops are rethinking the matter.  It should also be made known that the Holy Synod has a trained canonist at its disposal, and the final decision, whatever it is, will not be entered into lightly.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2002, 08:30:41 PM »

Bp Tikhon, being a very conservative bishop, probably does not believe in exercising economia towards the bishops in question.  This is one of those things that I feel strongly about, however; what a great chance for the OCA to pick up two bishops.  Even if one is immediately retired the other, Varlaam, seems interested in being a vicar bishop to Bp Seraphim.  The poor guy needs a vicar bishop--he's so "spread out"!

To me it doesn't really matter if Ach. Lazar was ousted from ROCOR: the OCA is not in communion with ROCOR so it really doesn't matter.  If the bishops were in communion they'd have to act differently, but ROCOR has taken OCA parishes and the didn't the OCA accept the Bulgarian excharcate from the ROCOR in 1976, so fair's fair right? :-)

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2002, 03:00:49 PM »

<snip>what a great chance for the OCA to pick up two bishops.  Even if one is immediately retired the other, Varlaam, seems interested in being a vicar bishop to Bp Seraphim.  The poor guy needs a vicar bishop--he's so "spread out"!>><snip>
In Christ,
anastasios

Anastasios, is the OCA so desperate to find bishops to fill its ranks that it finds it has to look outside itself and exercise extreme ekonomia to admit uncanonical, schismatic hierarchs to do so?  My own OCA Diocese of New England has been vacant for years (low man on the totem pole when it comes to getting a Ruling Bishop of its own, it would seem!), ever since Bishop Job was "translated" to the much larger Diocese of the Midwest, and the Albanian Archdiocese is no better off, vacant since the resignation of the now-retired Bishop Mark [Forsberg].  

Meanwhile, Bishop Seraphim [Sigrist], former Bishop of Sendai and East Japan, has no diocesan duties, but I, for one, would gladly welcome him to New England as our Ruling Bishop if the newly-consecrated Bishop Nikon of Baltimore is to be kept as nothing more than an "Auxiliary" to the Metropolitan with some kind of unspecified "oversight" over the New England Diocese and the Albanian Archdiocese, while the Metropolitan still remains officially as the Locum Tenens and Administrator of both these vacant dioceses.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Fr Thomas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2002, 08:29:43 PM »

Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) is not a bishop of the OCA, but under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.  He's been a friend of the OCA for years, so I'm sure that the idea of him serving would have been already considered.  Since he's available at his blog, I'm sure he would field questions about it.

Regarding the New England diocese, Bishop Nikon will be the bishop of both the Albanian Diocese and the New England Diocese sometime in the near future - this is what was reported to us.  The Holy Synod's MO right now is to make someone an auxilliary bishop for a time to test him out, since they still feel a bit stung by the departed Bishop Innocent.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2002, 09:35:27 PM »

Bishop Seraphim (Sigrist) is not a bishop of the OCA, but under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.  He's been a friend of the OCA for years, so I'm sure that the idea of him serving would have been already considered.  Since he's available at his blog, I'm sure he would field questions about it.

Regarding the New England diocese, Bishop Nikon will be the bishop of both the Albanian Diocese and the New England Diocese sometime in the near future - this is what was reported to us.  The Holy Synod's MO right now is to make someone an auxilliary bishop for a time to test him out, since they still feel a bit stung by the departed Bishop Innocent.
Priest Thomas Soroka

Father, bless.

Thank you for your input, Father Thomas.  Having known the late Bishop Innocent slightly *before* he was received into the OCA from the ACROD, when he was still Fr. George Gula at Tuxedo Park, NY, I could have been one of those who could have warned the Holy Synod about considering him for the episcopate before the "deal" was done (You may recall that there were those who cried "Anaxios!" at his episcopal consecration in Anchorage to no avail, and Metropolitan Nicholas of the ACROD even threatened to sever communion with the OCA over the issue).  That is now water under the dam.

I have met Bishop Nikon.  If he is truly being considered to be our resident Ruling Bishop in the DNE, I could not be more pleased.  He is a very humble, warm and caring man--my entire parish was impressed with him when he came for an episcopal visitation on one of the hottest days of the summer (He surprised the choir by appearing unannounced in the choir loft before being officially greeted to inquire how the choir members were bearing up under the summer heat).  At the coffee hour/trapeza after Hierarchical Liturgy, he came to each table and chatted with or at least acknowledged each and every person.   He is also familiar with many clergy in the DNE (and, of course, the Albanian Archdiocese, from which he originates) on a personal level, and knows firsthand what personnel changes need to be made.  The DNE and the Albanian Archdiocese could only benefit spiritually from Bishop Nikon's archpastoral guidance.

Kissing your right hand,
"Hypo-Ortho"
Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2002, 08:13:37 PM »

To me it doesn't really matter if Ach. Lazar was ousted from ROCOR: the OCA is not in communion with ROCOR so it really doesn't matter.

Anastasios, you put a smiley face at the end of this paragraph.  Does that mean that the above is a joke or is this really your opinion?

Thank you,

Chrysostomos
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2002, 10:42:27 PM »

To me it doesn't really matter if Ach. Lazar was ousted from ROCOR: the OCA is not in communion with ROCOR so it really doesn't matter.

Anastasios, you put a smiley face at the end of this paragraph.  Does that mean that the above is a joke or is this really your opinion?

Thank you,

Chrysostomos

Chrysostomos,

Sorry for the confusion! The smiley was in reference to "fair's fair" when I was talking about the OCA taking over ROCOR parishes.

I do think that the OCA doesn't need to necessarily consult ROCOR in order to take a deposed ROCOR deacon since the ROCOR is not in communion with the OCA.  Now if the ROCOR were in communion with the OCA, I'd expect them to not accept him.

And that being said, we are talking about what the OCA *HAS* to do.  Prudence and sensibility might require another course of action, and since we don't know all the details, there might be a reason why the ROCOR's actions and opinions might matter to the OCA on this issue.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2002, 01:08:07 AM »

I do think that the OCA doesn't need to necessarily consult ROCOR in order to take a deposed ROCOR deacon since the ROCOR is not in communion with the OCA.  Now if the ROCOR were in communion with the OCA, I'd expect them to not accept him.

Thank you for the clarification.  May I assume that you then also consider ROCOR to be "uncanonical?"  If you do believe ROCOR to be canonical, I am wondering how not being in communion with them trumps their canonical deposition of him.  Also, you seem to have no problem with either of them as bishops.  What do you think of the jurisdictions that ordained and consecrated them?  If I'm not mistaken, we are not in communion with any of the various groups they've passed through.

So, to sum up, I'm confused in spite of your clarification.  In order for me to understand where you're coming from, I need to know if you consider ROCOR to be canonical or not.  

Thanks again,

Chrysostomos
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2002, 01:35:24 AM »

Dear Chrysostomos:

I acknowledge (sp?) a reason for ROCOR's existence after communism's advent.

I believe that ROCOR is a "real" Church.

I have verified for myself that ROCOR is in communion with the Patriarch of Serbia (some on Orthodox-Forum have claimed otherwise).

As far as canonical, how can I judge that? I am not a canon law expert or even a student! (we don't take that until next year here at St. Vlad's!)

At best I'd have to say that ROCOR's standing is "valid but irregular."  "Valid" in that it is in union with another Orthodox Church.  Irregular in that it exists in schism and in competition with its mother Church (ie it has parishes in Russia, for instance).  I can't justify being under communists during the Cold War, and I can't justify them being in schism from the mother church now.  But I also see some's fear that things haven't really changed for the better in Moscow.  It is very confusing.

I think ROCORians are Orthodox, but their hierarchs are in an irregular position.  They are a particular Church without boundaries or definition.  That being the case, and the OCA not being in communion with them, I don't see a reason for the OCA to necessarily *have* to abide by their decisions.

Let me give you an analogy: the SSPX is a group in technical schism from Rome, but still considered by Rome to be Catholic, albeit irregular.  The SSPX grants annulments, which Rome says it technically can't do, it not being a group that has dioceses, but is really supposedly just a big religious order.  Now the SSPX does go ahead with those annulments, and sometimes Rome will consider them valid if the annulee later returns to visible communion with Rome.  Other times, Rome doesn't accept them.  It's at their discretion.  So the OCA, in my opinion, can use economia and the right of an autocephelous Church to do as it pleases. (my analogy is weak in that in the OCA vs. ROCOR feud, neither side is clearly wrong).

As for the Kiev Patriarchate, my views on them are cautious but not condemnatory, for instance as some people's are.  Their faithful can be received into the canonical Orthodox Church without chrismation, so there's someting there.  Yet they are dividing the faithful, which is not good.  Why I favor having those two KP bishops join the OCA is they might be able to bring their monastery, and their clergy, and their faithful with them.

Please don't try to make my views more important than they are, though.  These are only my opinions. Here is a summary of my views:

1) Totally Canonical, Totally Regular Orthodox: Great!
2) Totally Valid, Somewhat irregular* ROCOR: Good!
3) Kiev Patriarchate: Cautious...
4) Vagante (ordained to Church without a historical community): YUCK!

In Christ,

anastasios

* in itself a relative position: irregular according to whom?  Huh
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 01:38:44 AM by anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2002, 02:10:57 AM »

As far as canonical, how can I judge that?

Many people hold that if you are not in SCOBA, you are not canonical.  That was how I was using the word.

It is very confusing.

I agree.

but their hierarchs are in an irregular position.  They are a particular Church without boundaries or definition.  That being the case, and the OCA not being in communion with them,

That's for the clarification on what you think of ROCOR.  While I thought it might help me understand, it doesn't, unfortunately.  I still don't understand what the OCA not being in communion with ROCOR has to do with anything or where the basis for its having any significance is.  If you could clarify that part, I would appreciate it.

To me, it would seem that a canonical deposition by a synod of bishops (once we've determined that they are, in fact, canonical) is a canonical deposition by a synod of bishops and should be recognized if we want to pretend we abide by a canonical order.  

Here, I am not talking about clergy or priests who go from OCA to ROCOR or vice versa.  ISTM that that's part of the "grudge match" and I tend to discount it.  Our specific case has to do with a synod of bishops telling a deacon that he was wrong about a matter pertaining to the Orthodox faith.  As a result, that deacon went to another group, the Free Serbian Something or Other, because they would ordain him a priest.  This led, eventually, to his consecration as a bishop by a questionable jurisdiction.

So, that's what's confusing now.  The situation is that a canonically deposed deacon who was ordained and consecrated by uncanonical groups may be received as a retired bishop.  The only reasoning provided so far (I'm not just picking on you here, just trying to make sure I understand the situation) is that the OCA is not in communion with ROCOR: therefore, the decisions of their bishops in regards to matters of the Orthodox faith can be ignored.  Is this an accurate summary of your position?

Chrysostomos



Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2002, 08:41:13 AM »

AFAIK Archbishop Lazar isn't a heretic - his opinion about the toll-houses form of the particular judgement may differ from the late Fr Seraphim's (Rose). What bothers me here is not that the OCA might receive somebody from outside Orthodoxy (in this case, from the Free Serbian whatever) in his orders, because the Church can and does fill in grace where it might be lacking when receiving people economically. What bothers me is the grudge match between the OCA and ROCOR. They may not concelebrate but both are Orthodox and should respect each other's disciplinary decisions regarding clergy. After all, they recognize each other's canonizations! (Specifically, St John of Kronstadt and St Herman of Alaska, simultaneously recognized by the Metropolia/OCA and ROCOR, and St John [Maximovich] of ROCOR, after whom the OCA has named churches and monasteries.)
Logged

cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2002, 11:59:30 AM »

AFAIK Archbishop Lazar isn't a heretic - his opinion about the toll-houses form of the particular judgement may differ from the late Fr Seraphim's (Rose).

The synod of bishops of the ROCOR determined that: "Deacon Lev Puhalo has gone to the opposite extreme and contradicts a number of teachings which have long been accepted in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology."  Also that his "concept of the soul separated from the body does not correspond in the least to the Orthodox concept."

His explanation of the soul after death is also referred to as "unorthodox" and "is contrary to our Faith."  After all that, the Synod stated that "This controversy must be ended on both sides, and Deacon Lev Puhalo is forbidden to lecture in the parishes until he signs a pledge satisfactory to the Synod to terminate his public statements on questions of internal disputes between Orthodox on subjects which may provoke confusion among the faithful."  Which, obviously, he was not willing to do.  And, of courese, to this day, it's a big deal with him.

I read these statements of the Synod on an email list, but they are available here:  http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/tollhouse_debate.htm

So, according to the Synod, there is a doctrinal matter connected with the man that goes beyond something personal with Fr Seraphim Rose and that is contradictory to Orthodox theology.  I wonder if the OCA would specifically call that decision wrong or whether the matter would be obscured by the "grudge match."  Or maybe the matter just elicits a shrug from people in general.  I don't know.

Good point about the canonizations...

Chrysostomos


 



Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2002, 12:05:04 PM »

Reacting to Fr Seraphim (Rose), did Fr Deacon Lev Puhalo believe in the bizarre notion of 'soul sleep' until the Last Judgement, an idea so off the wall only Jehovah's Witnesses teach it?

If he did and wants to be Orthodox again, certainly he'd have to recant if he hasn't already.

Then ROCOR could lift his suspension and there should be no problem IMO with him being received economically as Archbishop Lazar in an Orthodox church such as the OCA.

The right thing for the OCA to do before receiving him would be to refer his case back to ROCOR since ROCOR suspended him.
Logged

Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2002, 12:21:13 PM »

Reacting to Fr Seraphim (Rose), did Fr Deacon Lev Puhalo believe in the bizarre notion of 'soul sleep' until the Last Judgement, an idea so off the wall only Jehovah's Witnesses teach it?

If he did and wants to be Orthodox again, certainly he'd have to recant if he hasn't already.

Then ROCOR could lift his suspension and there should be no problem IMO with him being received economically as Archbishop Lazar in an Orthodox church such as the OCA.

The right thing for the OCA to do before receiving him would be to refer his case back to ROCOR since ROCOR suspended him.

AFAIK, Serge, the problem that Lazar had with the "toll house" teaching is that in the ROCOR it's become virtually dogmatized.  The rest of Orthodoxy accepts it only as "theologoumen" (theological opinion) with which one may disagree and still be considered completely Orthodox.  No, Deacon Lev was suspended because of *disobedience* to the ROCOR's Synod of Bishops in publicly disagreeing with Fr. Seraphim Rose over the "toll-house" theory and refusing to be silenced, and thus creating confusion among the Faithful in the eyes of the ROCOR's Synod.  In Orthodoxy, a disobedient cleric is almost as bad, if not worse, than a heretic in a bishop's eyes.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 12:27:28 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2002, 01:26:47 PM »

AFAIK, Serge, the problem that Lazar had with the "toll house" teaching is that in the ROCOR it's become virtually dogmatized.

Going by the statement, I didn't get that sense at all.  I got the sense that the synod meant to convey that this was an area where not much has been revealed and great care must be taken.  I also did not get the sense that the synod was trying to stifle deacon Lev, only the rucus he was causing and his alternative theory.

The rest of Orthodoxy accepts it only as "theologoumen" (theological opinion) with which one may disagree and still be considered completely Orthodox.

Which, of course, probably would have been fine if that was the tack taken.  However, it wasn't.  Charges of "gnosticism" were/are tossed about and an alternative theory was proposed that the Synod didn't consider completely Orthodox at all. That's what caused all the hubub and resulted in it going all the way to the synod of bishops to begin with.  Lazar didn't/doesn't even accept it as theologumenon.  For him, any expression of toll houses is gnosticism derived from scholasticism.  Even if the ROCOR does dogmatize about it and the rest of Orthodoxy considers it a theological opinion, Lazar considers it heresy.  Either way, he's totally out of step.  His supporters tend to be theologians as far out or farther into canonical no man's land as he is (ie, HOCNA, another group that didn't like the Synod, so they left).  The other group that tends to support him are former CSB folk trying to sort out what of their experience was genuinely Orthodox and what wasn't.

In Orthodoxy, a disobedient cleric is almost as bad, if not worse, than a heretic in a bishop's eyes.

Good point.  I don't think the point is specifically about toll houses and I would sooner have teeth drilled than get into a debate about the correctness/incorrectness of the teaching.  I think this is about contributing to the Canonical Chaos in America.

Chrysostomos



Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2002, 03:58:59 PM »

AFAIK, Serge, the problem that Lazar had with the "toll house" teaching is that in the ROCOR it's become virtually dogmatized.

Going by the statement, I didn't get that sense at all.  I got the sense that the synod meant to convey that this was an area where not much has been revealed and great care must be taken.  I also did not get the sense that the synod was trying to stifle deacon Lev, only the rucus he was causing and his alternative theory.

The rest of Orthodoxy accepts it only as "theologoumen" (theological opinion) with which one may disagree and still be considered completely Orthodox.
<snip>
In Orthodoxy, a disobedient cleric is almost as bad, if not worse, than a heretic in a bishop's eyes.

Good point.  I don't think the point is specifically about toll houses and I would sooner have teeth drilled than get into a debate about the correctness/incorrectness of the teaching.  I think this is about contributing to the Canonical Chaos in America.

Chrysostomos

And about the ROCOR's Synod of Bishops siding with Fr. Seraphim over Deacon Lev in the debate over "toll houses." That was the sense I had at the time of the controversy.  Deacon Lev would not allow the ROCOR Synod to stifle him, was suspended and subsequently left the ROCOR without a canonical release to join the former "Free Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gracanica," which has since restored its communion with the Serbian Patriarchate, which has had virtually unbroken communion with the ROCOR.   By then, Deacon Lev, now Archimandrite Lazar, left the Serbians for the uncanonical Kyivan/Kievan Patriarchate, in which jurisdiction he was elevated to the episcopacy.

If Abp. Lazar's reception into the OCA is still on the Holy Synod's table, hopefully it would be without further confusion arising out of Lev/Lazar's erratic spiritual journey, i.e., receiving him as perhaps a simple hieromonk/abbot and no more.  Bp. Varlaam is a separate case and should be considered on his own merits.

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: November 06, 2002, 04:17:32 PM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
cparks
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2002, 04:51:12 PM »

Hypo-Ortho, I don't think we're disagreeing here, are we?  Sometimes I can't tell in cyberspace...
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2002, 04:55:42 PM »

Hypo-Ortho, I don't think we're disagreeing here, are we?  Sometimes I can't tell in cyberspace...

Glory to Jesus Christ!

No, Chrysostomos, I think we're on the same wave length!   Smiley

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2002, 05:26:35 PM »

Many people hold that if you are not in SCOBA, you are not canonical.  That was how I was using the word.

And of course, they'd be wrong. God Bless them anyway. Cheesy
Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2002, 10:06:03 AM »

Many people hold that if you are not in SCOBA, you are not canonical.  That was how I was using the word.

And of course, they'd be wrong. God Bless them anyway. Cheesy

Of course they'd be wrong, Nik, but it is *one* standard by which Orthodox in America can be assured that they are attending a church in a "real" as opposed to a "vagante" or other bogus Orthodox jurisdiction.  

In addition to the ROCOR, other NON-vagante "real" Orthodox jurisdictions on the American scene are the approximately 37-8 parishes belonging to the Administration/Exarchate (under Bishop Mercurius of Zaraisk) of the Moscow Patriarchate; the parishes of the American Exarchate (under Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna) of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili (Attica), Greece, which is in communion with the ROCOR; and the most recently-arrived on the American scene, the 3 or 4 parishes under the omophorion of the Jerusalem Patriarchate.  

Ah, sweet jurisdictional divisions and smorgasbord!  What would we Americans be like without it?!  Grin

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,732


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2002, 12:17:10 PM »

The Moscow Patriarchal exarchate in the US is represented in SCOBA by the MP's daughter Church, the OCA. ROCOR, including Etna, and the JP are non-SCOBA but Orthodox.
Logged

CDHealy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 112

I'm a philosophy major.

chealy5
WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 20, 2002, 03:36:02 PM »

I just received some messages from the [Metanoia] (orthodox-convert) list, which seemed to indicate Abp Puhalo has been received into OCA.  Did I already miss this from the messages here?  Is this confirmed?
Logged

Clifton D. Healy
email: chealy5@yahoo.com
blog: http://benedictseraphim.wordpress.com

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--Hamlet,
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 20, 2002, 11:39:19 PM »

I just received some messages from the [Metanoia] (orthodox-convert) list, which seemed to indicate Abp Puhalo has been received into OCA.  Did I already miss this from the messages here?  Is this confirmed?


Thus far, Clifton, *no* official word about the reception of Archbishop Lazar has been announced by the OCA.  Indeed, officially, the OCA has been silent on Abp. Lazar's status.

I have been assured by Father John Matusiak, the OCA Communications Officer, that when there is something to announce concerning Abp. Lazar that it will be published on the official OCA website.  It would appear from my communications with Fr. John that the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops is in no rush to reach a decision in this matter.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2003, 03:46:35 AM »

I just received some messages from the [Metanoia] (orthodox-convert) list, which seemed to indicate Abp Puhalo has been received into OCA.  Did I already miss this from the messages here?  Is this confirmed?


More and more rumors are abounding that Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] has indeed been quietly received into the OCA as a "Retired Hierarch."  On Archbishop Lazar's own New Ostrog website it states as much (actually, it states unequivocally that the New Ostrog Monastery now belongs to the Canadian Archdiocese of the Orthodox Church in America), yet the official OCA website continues in silence about Archbishop Lazar's status.  According to a private communication, all the papers are signed and Archbishop Lazar is simply awaiting a concelebration with one or more OCA hierarchs to "seal the deal."  

Can anyone here tell us if Archbishop Lazar is indeed a "Retired Hierarch" of the OCA now (as an uncanonical Ukrainian Orthodox hierarch in Canada has emailed me, as if it were common knowledge)?  If so, why is the OCA remaining silent about his reception?  Why the secrecy?  What about Bishop Varlaam of Vancouver?  What is his status?  Will he be appointed as Vicar Bishop to OCA Bishop Seraphim of Ottawa and Canada (who could really use his assistance in the OCA's vast Canadian Archdiocese)?  Anastasios, any word concerning Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlaam at St. Vladimir's Seminary?

Hypo-Ortho
« Last Edit: January 17, 2003, 05:29:06 AM by Hypo-Ortho » Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2003, 02:05:21 AM »

Reacting to Fr Seraphim (Rose), did Fr Deacon Lev Puhalo believe in the bizarre notion of 'soul sleep' until the Last Judgement, an idea so off the wall only Jehovah's Witnesses teach it?

If he did and wants to be Orthodox again, certainly he'd have to recant if he hasn't already.

Then ROCOR could lift his suspension and there should be no problem IMO with him being received economically as Archbishop Lazar in an Orthodox church such as the OCA.

The right thing for the OCA to do before receiving him would be to refer his case back to ROCOR since ROCOR suspended him.

AFAIK, Serge, the problem that Lazar had with the "toll house" teaching is that in the ROCOR it's become virtually dogmatized.  The rest of Orthodoxy accepts it only as "theologoumen" (theological opinion) with which one may disagree and still be considered completely Orthodox.  No, Deacon Lev was suspended because of *disobedience* to the ROCOR's Synod of Bishops in publicly disagreeing with Fr. Seraphim Rose over the "toll-house" theory and refusing to be silenced, and thus creating confusion among the Faithful in the eyes of the ROCOR's Synod.  In Orthodoxy, a disobedient cleric is almost as bad, if not worse, than a heretic in a bishop's eyes.

Hypo-Ortho
Since I'm not a cleric or a member of ROCOR, I'll weigh in on this:
I really blame Fr. Seraphim for making a big deal out of the toll-houses in the first place. I bet, but do not know for sure, that toll-houses were a very low-key topic before he started writing. And, for the matter, I think ROCOR was wrong to dogmatize it, like Deacon Lev said. After all, the Jordanville PB was changed to incorporate the toll-houses in 1986, I think, after Deacon Lev lost his battle.

Also, when has the ROCOR been faithful in following the OCA's disciplinary actions-what about St. Mary of Egpyt church in the OCA's Diocese of the South, in the re-baptism controversy?

Economan

Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2003, 10:26:46 AM »

Economan<<Also, when has the ROCOR been faithful in following the OCA's disciplinary actions-what about St. Mary of Egpyt church in the OCA's Diocese of the South, in the re-baptism controversy?>>

Good point, Economan.  But two wrongs do not a right make.  The ROCOR also received into its jurisdiction from the OCA the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension in Resaca, GA, after the monks, or at least some of them, had gone to Mount Athos and accepted re-baptism there, for which they were disciplined by His Eminence, Archbishop DMITRI of Dallas and the South (OCA).  Rather than condemning the unOrthodox practice of re-baptism, many in the ROCOR were instead gleefully exuding joy over the "coup" they had won in receiving the Resaca monastery and somehow "skipping over" the issue of the re-baptism of the monks.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2003, 08:53:53 PM »

Hypo-Orthodox wrote:

Quote
Rather than condemning the unOrthodox practice of re-baptism...

Dear Hypo-Orthodox,

Isn't the issue of the mode of reception of converts still not a resolved issue in the Church?  In some Greek jurisdictions (both New and Old Calendar), ROCOR, and I think Jerusalem, the common method of reception of converts is through baptism, while other jurisdictions such as the OCA, Antiochians, the GOA receive converts through Chrism and Confession.  Still yet, the MP receives Roman Catholic converts through merely Confession (with the intention of uniting to Orthodoxy) without Chrismation, and Protestants through Chrismation and Confession.  I don't know what the Bulgarians and Serbians, Georgians and Romanians do.

With that in mind, how can any of the above modes (Confession alone, Confession & Chrismation, or the whole Baptism) be considered un-Orthodox?  IIRC, this issue hasn't been uniformly and universally resolved in the Church.  Those who receive converts from other confessions through Baptism do not believe that they are rebaptizing the convert (since they are of the school that only the Church can confer true Baptism and there is no Baptism outside the Church).  Those who receive those converts through Confession & Chrismation believe that this oikonomia is completing what is lacking or deficient in convert's non-Orthodox Baptism.  And I'm not sure what those jurisdictions who receive through only Confession believe regarding the convert's Baptism (the MP Website seems to take an optimistic view of Roman Catholic sacraments).  ISTM that until the issue is resolved regarding the Church's attitude towards non-Orthodox sacraments, then perhaps the mode of reception may not be unanimous either.  No?

This type of non-uniformity has existed in the Church for at least 400 years.  The Russian Church (since the 17th century) employed the 3 degrees of reception (Baptism for Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Chrism for Protestants, Confession for Armenians, Nestorians and Roman Catholics).  OTOH, the Greek Church, since the 16th century has tended to be much stricter (generally), administering Orthodox Baptism to those who embrace Orthodoxy (regardless of their non-Orthodox background).

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2003, 12:59:08 AM »

Stephen, speaking only about the reception of the monks of the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension into Holy Orthodoxy through the Mystery of Chrismation by the OCA, thereby completing what may have been lacking in their heterodox baptisms, this "ekonomia" of reception was approved by canonical Orthodox bishops for the monks in question.  It is not for you or me to question the application of "ekonomia" by Orthodox bishops of whatever jurisdiction.

But when these same monks go to Mount Athos and accept a baptism AFTER their Orthodox Chrismations, well, something is totally out of sync here, wouldn't you say?  And Archbishop DMITRI rightly disciplined these monks for upsetting canonical order.   Btw, I personally have witnessed the reception of converts by the ROCOR in exactly the same manner as did the OCA for these monks!!!

As for the Greeks, I have witnessed in a GOA cathedral in the past year the reception of a convert from Roman Catholicism through an Orthodox profession of faith and the reception of the Mystery of Chrismation, no differently than the OCA practice or the practice I observed for one convert in the ROCOR.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2003, 05:30:16 PM »

Quote
As for the Greeks, I have witnessed in a GOA cathedral in the past year the reception of a convert from Roman Catholicism through an Orthodox profession of faith and the reception of the Mystery of Chrismation, no differently than the OCA practice or the practice I observed for one convert in the ROCOR.

I was recieved into the GOA by Chrismation (former Roman myself).  From what I gather all RC converts are "supposed" to be recieved this way in the GOA.
Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2003, 05:54:34 PM »

Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

Economan
Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2003, 06:15:53 PM »

Nektarios,

As you probably know, Elder Epharim's monasteries revcieve all converts, I believe, by baptism, regardless of the circumstances.
In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.

It looks like I sure got this topic off track!

Economan
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2003, 06:18:02 PM »

Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

Economan
Right on, Economan!  Those ROCOR parishes that do administer Baptism AFTER those converts to Orthodoxy have already been received through a method OTHER THAN Baptism, e.g., Chrismation, are in disobedience to the directives of their own ROCOR hierarchs.  

While I would agree with the principle that reception into Orthodoxy by Baptism *should be* the norm, I also believe that it is within the provenance of canonical Orthodox bishops to rightly administer ekonomia for exceptions to the norm, and all canonical Orthodox bishops should maintain canonical order by fully respecting the exercising of ekonomia by those bishops in other jurisdictions that have so exercised ekonomia in the reception of converts by methods other than Holy Baptism.  And it is not up to me (or any of us) to judge or demean a bishop or Synod of Bishops in such an exercise of ekonomia or the Mysteries that are administered in their name(s).

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2003, 06:39:12 PM »

Economan<<In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.>>

I have observed the same diversity over the years in my experience within the OCA also.  Twenty-five years ago the Hapgood book was followed to the letter and was used almost exclusively.  I noticed that Hapgood is also followed in the ROCOR even now in the same way as the OCA used to use it.  The new OCA Rite of Reception of Converts eliminates all the public refutation of errors by the convert that occur in the rite "a la Hapgood" and is identical to the method of reception in the typical GOA parish, i.e., profession of Orthodox Faith (Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed) and Chrismation for those being received from most non-Orthodox Christian denominations.  Psychologically, I think this is a mistake in the new rite: the formal refutation of errors is very important, IMHO, and should have been retained to help the convert get a "clean slate" in his/her Orthodox beliefs.  I wonder: is the new rite of reception a concession to ecumenism?  

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2003, 06:58:55 PM »

Hypo-Orthdodox wrote:

Quote
But when these same monks go to Mount Athos and accept a baptism AFTER their Orthodox Chrismations, well, something is totally out of sync here, wouldn't you say?

and Economan wrote:

Quote
Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

OK, now I see where you are coming from.  You're referring to a specific incident where one jurisdiction pretty much deems invalid the mode of reception of a convert in another jurisdiction.  I see your point.  Speaking of ROCOR, now that you mentioned it, I know of a Lutheran woman who was received into ROCOR by Profession of the Orthodox Faith, Confession and Chrismation (in the late 1990s), and I also know of someone who is now a priest who was received into the Antiochian jurisdiction (from Roman Catholicism) by Chrismation, was eventually ordained a priest by Metropolitan Phillip, and who subsequently went into ROCOR, and was received into ROCOR by vesting. IOW, he was not baptized--and his reception into the Antiochians was accepted as a proper reception by virtue of the fact he was simply vested.  So I see your point -- where I had not previously drawn that distinction.  It's a matter of wholly ignoring another jurisdiction's practice or discernment.

Thanks,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2003, 07:06:28 PM »

Hypo-Orthodox wrote:

Quote
I have observed the same diversity over the years in my experience within the OCA also.  Twenty-five years ago the Hapgood book was followed to the letter and was used almost exclusively.  I noticed that Hapgood is also followed in the ROCOR even now in the same way as the OCA used to use it.  The new OCA Rite of Reception of Converts eliminates all the public refutation of errors by the convert that occur in the rite "a la Hapgood" and is identical to the method of reception in the typical GOA parish, i.e., profession of Orthodox Faith (Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed) and Chrismation for those being received from most non-Orthodox Christian denominations.  

Now this concerns me a little bit... Any feedback from the clergy (who use the newer rite) as to why the OCA has toned down the renunciation of errors aspect of the reception ceremony?  

I know in my own home parish (OCA), a friend of mine, who was Presbyterian was received via Chrismation exactly according to the Hapgood book.  He had to renounce the Calvinist errors, and confess various tenets of the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
Psychologically, I think this is a mistake in the new rite: the formal refutation of errors is very important, IMHO, and should have been retained to help the convert get a "clean slate" in his/her Orthodox beliefs.  I wonder: is the new rite of reception a concession to ecumenism?

I agree with both the benefits of the renunciation of errors and the concern/question about whether the newer rite is concession to ecumenism.

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2003, 07:19:36 PM »

In my OCA parish, from the Chrismations I have seen, the converts had to renunciate their errors.  I have not seen it done any other way, of course I have been to only two other parishes.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2003, 07:22:58 PM »

UPDATE: Getting this thread back somewhat to its original subject, i.e., the reception into the OCA of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo and Bishop Varlaam as "retired hierarchs," I have been in contact with Fr. John Matusiak, the OCA Communications Officer in Syosset, and have been told that all rumors, inuendos, and statements by any and all parties that LAZAR and VARLAAM (including LAZAR's own New Ostrog Monastery website) have already been received are *premature* and that the matter is STILL under consideration by the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops, but nothing has as yet been formalized and finalized.  No announcement will be made from Syosset until the Holy Synod has reached a final decision in this matter.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2003, 07:33:45 PM »

In my OCA parish, from the Chrismations I have seen, the converts had to renunciate their errors.  I have not seen it done any other way, of course I have been to only two other parishes.  

Sinjin, I think that some OCA priests are simply uncomfortable with the New Rite for Reception of Converts.  The "New Rite" may be used in the pastoral discretion of a priest who has thoroughly catechized a prospective convert and is satisfied that the convert knows well the differences between Orthodoxy and his/her former faith affiliation.  These may be few and far between, I don't know.  But perhaps our OCA priests are more conservative and pastorally knowledgable than those who are pushing the "New Rite" are.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2003, 08:22:15 PM »

Quote
As you probably know, Elder Epharim's monasteries revcieve all converts, I believe, by baptism, regardless of the circumstances.
In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.

I don't believe they still do this as the GOA bishops weren't overly happy about the practice.  I know they do NOT baptize a convert who was not recieved via baptism post factum.  It should be remembered though thta even Fathers were divided on this issue and not to "triumph" one's position.
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2003, 04:05:48 AM »

From what I know from the priests from the Greek Archdiocese here, unconfirmed converts who were originally baptized in the RC, are generally received through chrismation, confession and profession of Orthodox faith. And when the RC had been previously chrismated, proffession of faith is often enough, though unction with Holy Chrism is administered to, but differs from the full sacrament of chrismation.

And about "renouncing their errors", Bishops have called to have a criteria about each individual situation. The thing here is that not all the cases of conversions to Orthodoxy from the RC are that of the "convinced" RC who decides to become Orthodox only because he/she wants to marry an Orthodox, or because of a similar reason.

I don't think a person who was baptized in the Roman Church, but doesn't attend Catholic Mass for whatever reason (in many cases a reason of conscience which separates him from the hetherodox doctrines proffessed by that community and that mass, etc.), and is clearly out of that community, and then places himself in Orthodox services, and gradually becomes Orthodox, then the person would in essence not be a Catholic, de facto, in the first place, relying exclusively on the Orthodox Church for the sacraments, for community worship, etc.
Logged
Stephen Barrow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2003, 06:39:57 PM »

From the OCA web-site today 2/5/2003 regarding the meeting of the Lessor Synod of the OCA:

"Lesser Synod members also heard a report by Father Kondratick concerning the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] who, while in principle approved for reception into the OCA by a previous decision of the Holy Synod, has yet to have his status formalized. Members of the Lesser Synod decided, after a review of all documentation available, to affirm the decision of the Holy Synod made at its May 24,2002 session to formally accept Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlam ]Novakshonoff] as retired bishops of the Orthodox Church in America."

The article may be found here:

 http://www.oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=316
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2003, 06:48:06 PM »

Thanks for this up-to-the-minute-update on the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] of New Ostrog and Bishop Varlaam [Novakshonoff] of Vancouver as finally being received as "Retired Hierarchs" of the OCA, Stephen.

I wonder why this was left to the OCA's Lesser Synod to confirm and not the OCA's entire Holy Synod of Bishops though.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2003, 07:30:50 PM »

Thanks for this up-to-the-minute-update on the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] of New Ostrog and Bishop Varlaam [Novakshonoff] of Vancouver as finally being received as "Retired Hierarchs" of the OCA, Stephen.

I wonder why this was left to the OCA's Lesser Synod to confirm and not the OCA's entire Holy Synod of Bishops though.

Hypo-Ortho  

Perhaps the entire Synod feared being blasted for the decision, so they had the Lesser Synod make the decision and the scapegoats for any criticism.  This is my hypothesis.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2003, 07:43:44 PM »

Sinjinsmythe<<Perhaps the entire Synod feared being blasted for the decision, so they had the Lesser Synod make the decision and the scapegoats for any criticism.  This is my hypothesis.>>

Could be so, Sinjins, could be so.  Let us hope that this ends the ecclesiastical peregrinations of Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlaam and that they have both finally found peace in being canonical once more after such a long hiatus in uncanonical jurisdictions, one of which no longer exists (the so-called "Free" Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gracanica, which has ended its schism and rejoined the canonical Serbian Patriarchate as the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of New Gracanica).

For my part, I wish both His Eminence, Archbishop LAZAR, and His Grace, Bishop VARLAAM, well and pray that God may grant both of these newly-received "retired" Orthodox hierarchs MANY YEARS!  M'nogaya, blagaya l'eta!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Tags: Lazar Puhalo 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.171 seconds with 92 queries.